Full text
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20220
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
December 20, 2024
MEMORANDUM FOR JESSICA MILANO, CHIEF PROGRAM OFFICER, OFFICE OF
CAPITAL ACCESS, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
FROM: Deborah L. Harker /s/
Assistant Inspector General for Audit
SUBJECT: Desk Review of the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma’s Use of
Coronavirus Relief Fund Proceeds (OIG-CA-25-024)
Please find the attached desk review memorandum1 on the Kiowa Tribe of
Oklahoma’s (Kiowa Tribe) use of Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) proceeds. The
CRF is authorized under Title VI of the Social Security Act, as amended by Title V,
Division A of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act).
Under a contract monitored by our office, Castro & Company, LLC (Castro), a
certified independent public accounting firm, performed the desk review. Castro
performed the desk review in accordance with the Council of the Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency Quality Standards for Federal Offices of
Inspector General standards of independence, due professional care, and quality
assurance.
In its desk review, Castro personnel reviewed documentation for a non-statistical
selection of 20 transactions reported in the quarterly Financial Progress Reports
(FPR) and identified a combination of unsupported and ineligible questioned costs
of $7,749,559 and $780,595, respectively, resulting in total questioned costs of
$8,530,154 (see attached schedule of monetary benefits). 2
1
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) assigned the Department of
the Treasury Office of Inspector General with responsibility for compliance monitoring and
oversight of the receipt, disbursement, and use of Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) payments. The
purpose of the desk review is to perform monitoring procedures of the prime recipient’s receipt,
disbursement, and use of CRF proceeds as reported in the grant-reporting portal on a quarterly
basis.
2
The amounts of unsupported and total questioned costs listed here differ from the Castro desk
review amounts by $1,000. Kiowa Tribe management provided additional information to
Department of the Treasury Office of Inspector General during the exit conference. Based upon
review of the additional supporting documentation, we determined that $1,000 of unsupported
questioned costs included in Castro’s desk review relating to an Emergency Assistance Program
hardship payment was now supportable. As such, we have removed $1,000 from the unsupported
questioned costs included in Castro’s desk review report.
Page 2
Castro determined that the expenditures related to the Contracts greater than or
equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, 3 and Aggregate
Payments to Individuals4 payment types did not comply with the CARES Act and
Department of the Treasury’s (Treasury) Guidance. Castro also identified
grant-reporting portal misclassification issues related to Contracts greater than or
equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate
Payments to Individuals payment types that did not comply with Treasury’s
Guidance. Additionally, Castro determined that Kiowa Tribe’s risk of unallowable
use of funds is high.
Castro recommends that Treasury Office of Inspector General (OIG) follow-up with
Kiowa Tribe’s management to confirm if the $7,749,559 noted as unsupported
expenditures within the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate
Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment
types can be supported. If support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup
the funds or request that Kiowa Tribe management provides support for
replacement expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF
period of performance.
In addition, Castro recommends that Treasury OIG request that Kiowa Tribe
management provides support for replacement expenses, not previously charged,
that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $780,595 of
ineligible costs charged to the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 and
Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types. If support is not provided,
Treasury OIG should recoup the funds.
Further, based on Kiowa Tribe’s responsiveness to Treasury OIG’s requests and
its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported and
ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro
recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the
Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000,
and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types.
Additionally, Castro identified other matters throughout the course of its desk
review, which warrant recommendations to Treasury OIG for additional action.
Castro recommends Treasury OIG follow-up on these issues:
3 Recipients are required to report CRF transactions greater than or equal to $50,000 in detail in the
grant-reporting portal. Transactions less than $50,000 can be reported as an aggregate lump-sum
amount by type (contracts, grants, loans, direct payments, and transfers to other government
entities).
4
Obligations and expenditures for payments made to individuals, regardless of amount, are
required to be reported in the aggregate in the grant-reporting portal to prevent inappropriate
disclosure of personally identifiable information.
Page 3
1) Follow-up with Kiowa Tribe for the $12,678 of contract costs not yet tested
within the desk review related to payment of attorney’s fees to determine if
there are additional unsupported or ineligible questioned costs.
2) Castro identified questioned costs within all of Kiowa Tribe’s hardship
program payment types: Food Voucher Assistance Program, Pay My Bills
Program, Elderly Emergency Assistance Program, and Emergency
Assistance Program. Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the
feasibility of performing additional follow-up with the Kiowa Tribe to
determine if there were other instances of ineligible or unsupported
hardship balances related to these four hardship programs claimed within
its Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type.
3) In addition, as it relates to the hardship payments charged to the Aggregate
Payments to Individuals payment type, Castro identified $579,443 in
hardship payment costs not yet questioned through its desk review that
may have been included in Kiowa Tribe’s most recently approved budget as
of March 27, 2020. Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the
feasibility of following up with Kiowa Tribe over the $579,443 of additional
hardship payments to determine whether this balance charged to the CRF
included previously budgeted expenditures and, if so, Castro recommends
Treasury OIG recoup the funds or request that Kiowa Tribe management
provide support for replacement expenses, not previously charged, that
were eligible during the CRF period of performance.
4) Kiowa Tribe claimed expenses related to a hardship payment to a tribal
citizen within its Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000 payment type that
was erroneously not included within its Aggregate Payments to Individuals
payment type. Castro recommends Treasury OIG request that Kiowa Tribe
perform an analysis over its Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000
payment type claimed costs to determine if there are any additional
hardship payments included within that payment type. Based on the results
of this assessment, Castro recommends that Treasury OIG consider the
feasibility of performing additional testing over these balances.
Treasury OIG and Castro held an exit conference with Kiowa Tribe management
to discuss the report. Kiowa Tribe management provided additional information to
Treasury OIG during the exit conference. Based upon review of the additional
supporting documentation, we determined that $1,000 of unsupported questioned
costs included in Castro’s desk review relating to an Emergency Assistance
Program hardship payment was now supportable. As such, we have removed
$1,000 from the unsupported questioned costs included in Castro’s desk review
report. Treasury OIG will review the additional supporting documentation
Page 4
provided by the Kiowa Tribe during the exit conference during follow-up
procedures to be conducted in calendar year 2025.
In connection with our contract with Castro, we reviewed Castro’s desk review
memorandum and related documentation and inquired of its representatives. Our
review, as differentiated from an audit performed in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards, was not intended to enable us to
express an opinion on Kiowa Tribe’s use of CRF proceeds. Castro is responsible
for the attached desk review memorandum and the conclusions expressed
therein. Our review found no instances in which Castro did not comply in all
material respects with Quality Standards for Federal Offices of Inspectors General .
We appreciate the courtesies and cooperation provided to Castro and our staff
during the desk review. If you have any questions or require further information,
please contact me at (202) 486-1420, or a member of your staff may contact Lisa
DeAngelis, Audit Director, at (202) 487-8371.
cc: Michelle A. Dickerman, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Department of
the Treasury
Danielle Christensen, Deputy Chief Program Officer, Office of Capital
Access, Department of the Treasury
Jennifer Parisien, Policy Advisor, Office of Tribal & Native Affairs,
Department of the Treasury
Wayne Ference, Partner, Castro & Company, LLC
Summer Palmer, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma
William Weaver, Chief Financial Officer, Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma
Page 5
Attachment
Schedule of Monetary Benefits
According to the Code of Federal Regulations, 5 a questioned cost is a cost that is
questioned due to a finding:
(a) which resulted from a violation or possible violation of a statute,
regulation, or the terms and conditions of a Federal award, including for
funds used to match Federal funds;
(b) where the costs, at the time of the review, are not supported by
adequate documentation; or
(c) where the costs incurred appear unreasonable and do not reflect the
actions a prudent person would take in the circumstances.
Questioned costs are to be recorded in the Department of the Treasury’s
(Treasury) Joint Audit Management Enterprise System (JAMES). 6 The amount will
also be included in the Office of Inspector General (OIG) Semiannual Report to
Congress. It is Treasury management's responsibility to report to Congress on the
status of the agreed to recommendations with monetary benefits in accordance
with 5 USC Section 405.
Recommendation Questioned Costs
Recommendation No. 1 $8,530,154
The questioned cost represents amounts provided by Treasury under the
Coronavirus Relief Fund. As discussed in the attached desk review, $8,530,154 is
Kiowa Tribe’s expenditures reported in the grant-reporting portal that were
ineligible or lacked supporting documentation.
5
2 CFR § 200.84 – Questioned Cost
6
JAMES is Treasury’s audit recommendation tracking system.
1635 King Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703.229.4440
Fax: 703.859.7603
www.castroco.com
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
December 20, 2024
OIG-CA-25-024
MEMORANDUM FOR DEBORAH L. HARKER,
ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDIT
FROM: Wayne Ference
Partner, Castro & Company, LLC
SUBJECT: Desk Review of the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma
On January 22, 2024, we initiated a desk review of the Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma’s
(Kiowa Tribe) use of the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) authorized under Title VI of
the Social Security Act, as amended by Title V, Division A of the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). 1 The objective of our desk review
was to evaluate Kiowa Tribe’s documentation supporting its uses of CRF proceeds
as reported in the GrantSolutions2 portal and to assess the risk of unallowable use
of funds. The scope of our desk review was limited to obligation and expenditure
data for the period of March 1, 2020 through September 30, 2022,3 as reported in
the GrantSolutions portal.
As part of our desk review, we performed the following:
1) reviewed Kiowa Tribe’s quarterly Financial Progress Reports (FPRs)
submitted in the GrantSolutions portal through September 30, 2022;
2) reviewed the Department of the Treasury’s (Treasury) Coronavirus Relief
Fund Guidance as published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2021; 4
1
P.L. 116-136 (March 27, 2020).
2
GrantSolutions, a grant and program management Federal shared service provider under the
United States (U.S.) Department of Health and Human Services, developed a customized and user-
friendly reporting solution to capture the use of CRF payments from prime recipients.
3
Kiowa Tribe fully expended their total CRF proceeds as of September 30, 2022. Castro set the
scope end date to September 30, 2022, which was the date of Kiowa Tribe’s last reporting
submission within the GrantSolutions portal.
4
Coronavirus Relief Fund Guidance as published in the Federal Register (January 15, 2021).
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/CRF-Guidance-Federal-Register_2021-00827.pdf
1
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
3) reviewed Treasury’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) Coronavirus Relief
Fund Frequently Asked Questions Related to Reporting and
Recordkeeping;5
4) reviewed Treasury OIG’s monitoring checklists6 of Kiowa Tribe’s quarterly
FPR submissions for reporting deficiencies;
5) reviewed other audit reports issued, such as Single Audit Act reports 7, and
those issued by the Government Accountability Office and other applicable
Federal agency OIGs for internal control or other deficiencies that may
pose risk or impact Kiowa Tribe’s uses of CRF proceeds;
6) reviewed Treasury OIG Office of Investigations, the Council of the
Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency Pandemic Response
Accountability Committee,8 and Treasury OIG Office of Counsel input on
issues that may pose risk or impact Kiowa Tribe’s uses of CRF proceeds;
7) interviewed key personnel responsible for preparing and certifying Kiowa
Tribe’s GrantSolutions portal quarterly FPR submissions, as well as officials
responsible for obligating and expending CRF proceeds;
8) made a non-statistical selection of Contracts, Aggregate Reporting 9, and ,
Aggregate Payments to Individuals10 data identified through
GrantSolutions reporting; and
5
Department of the Treasury Office of Inspector General Coronavirus Relief Fund Frequently Asked
Questions Related to Reporting and Recordkeeping OIG-20-028R; March 2, 2021.
6
The checklists were used by Treasury OIG personnel to monitor the progress of prime recipient
reporting in the GrantSolutions portal. GrantSolutions quarterly submission reviews were
designed to identify material omissions and significant errors, and where necessary, included
procedures for notifying prime recipients of misreported data for timely correction. Treasury OIG
followed the CRF Prime Recipient Quarterly GrantSolutions Submissions Monitoring and Review
Procedures Guide, OIG-CA-20-029R to monitor the prime recipients on a quarterly basis.
7
P. L. 104-156 (July 5, 1996) The Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended in 1996, requires entities
who receive federal funds in excess of $750,000 to undergo an annual audit of those Federal funds.
The act was enacted for the purpose of promoting sound financial management, including
effective internal controls, with respect to Federal awards administered by non-Federal entities and
to establish uniform requirements for audits. This prime recipient was subject to those audit
requirements, and Castro reviewed applicable prior year single audit reports as part of our desk
review risk assessment procedures.
8
Section 15010 of P.L. 116-136, the CARES Act, established the Pandemic Response Accountability
Committee within the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to promote
transparency and conduct and support oversight of covered funds (see Footnote 15 for a definition
of covered funds) and the coronavirus response to (1) prevent and detect fraud, waste, abuse, and
mismanagement; and (2) mitigate major risks that cut across program and agency boundaries.
9
Prime recipients were required to report CRF transactions greater than or equal to $50,000 in
detail in the GrantSolutions portal. Transactions less than $50,000 could be reported as an
aggregate lump-sum amount by type (contracts, grants, loans, direct payments, and transfers to
other government entities).
10
Obligations and expenditures for payments made to individuals, regardless of amount, were
required to be reported in the aggregate in the GrantSolutions portal to prevent inappropriate
disclosure of personally identifiable information.
2
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
9) evaluated documentation and records used to support Kiowa Tribe’s
quarterly FPRs.
Based on our review of Kiowa Tribe’s documentation supporting the uses of CRF
proceeds as reported in the GrantSolutions portal, we determined that the
expenditures related to the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate
Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment
types did not comply with the CARES Act and Treasury’s Guidance.
We identified unsupported and ineligible questioned costs of $7,750,559 and
$780,595, respectively, resulting in total questioned costs of $8,531,154.
Additionally, Kiowa Tribe’s risk of unallowable use of funds is high.
Castro recommends that Treasury OIG follow-up with Kiowa Tribe’s management
to confirm if the $7,750,559 noted as unsupported expenditures within the
Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000,
and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types can be supported. If
support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request Kiowa
Tribe management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously
charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance.
In addition, Castro recommends that Treasury OIG request Kiowa Tribe
management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously
charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $780,595
of ineligible costs charged to the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 and
Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types. If support is not provided,
Treasury OIG should recoup the funds.
Further, based on Kiowa Tribe’s responsiveness to Treasury OIG’s requests and
its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported and
ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro
recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the
Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000,
and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types.
3
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
Non-Statistical Transaction Selection Methodology
Treasury issued a $22,586,666 CRF payment to Kiowa Tribe. As of
September 30, 2022, Kiowa Tribe expended all of its CRF funds. Kiowa Tribe’s
cumulative obligations and expenditures by payment type are summarized below.
Cumulative Cumulative
Payment Type Obligations Expenditures
Contracts >= $50,000 $ 9,163,388 $ 9,163,388
Grants >= $50,000 $ - $ -
Loans >= $50,000 $ - $ -
Transfers >= $50,000 $ - $ -
Direct Payments >= $50,000 $ - $ -
Aggregate Reporting < $50,000 $ 450,928 $ 450,928
Aggregate Payments to
Individuals (in any amount) $ 12,972,350 $ 12,972,350
Totals $ 22,586,666 $ 22,586,666
Castro made a non-statistical selection of payments in the Contracts greater than
or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate
Payments to Individuals payment types. Selections were made using auditor
judgment based on information and risks identified in reviewing audit reports, the
GrantSolutions portal reporting anomalies11 identified by the Treasury OIG CRF
monitoring team, and review of Kiowa Tribe’s FPR submissions. Kiowa Tribe did
not obligate or expend CRF proceeds to the Grants greater than or equal
to $50,000, Loans greater than or equal to $50,000, Transfers greater than or equal
to $50,000,12 and Direct Payments greater than or equal to $50,000 payment types;
therefore, we did not make a selection of transactions from these payment types.
The number of transactions (20) we selected to test were based on Kiowa Tribe’s
total CRF award amount and our overall risk assessment of Kiowa Tribe. To
allocate the number of transactions (20) by payment type (Contracts greater than
or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate
Payments to Individuals), we compared the payment type dollar amounts as a
percentage of cumulative expenditures as of September 30, 2022. The
transactions selected for testing were not selected statistically, and therefore
results could not be extrapolated to the total universe of transactions.
11
Treasury OIG had a pre-defined list of risk indicators that were triggered based on data
submitted by prime recipients in the FPR submissions that met certain criteria. Castro reviewed
these results provided by Treasury OIG for the prime recipient.
12
A transfer to another government entity is a disbursement or payment to a government entity
that is legally distinct from the prime recipient.
4
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
Background
The CARES Act appropriated $150 billion to establish the CRF. Under the CRF,
Treasury made payments for specified uses to States and certain local
governments; the District of Columbia and U.S. Territories, including the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and tribal governments
(collectively referred to as “prime recipients”). Treasury issued a $22,586,666 CRF
payment to Kiowa Tribe. The CARES Act stipulates that a prime recipient may
only use the funds to cover costs that—
(1) were necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health
emergency with respect to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19);
(2) were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of
March 27, 2020; and
(3) were incurred during the covered period between March 1, 2020 and
December 31, 2022.13
Section 15011 of the CARES Act required each covered recipient 14 to submit to
Treasury and the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee, no later than 10
days after the end of each calendar quarter, a report that contained (1) the total
amount of large, covered funds15,16 received from Treasury; (2) the amount of
large, covered funds received that were expended or obligated for each project or
activity; (3) a detailed list of all projects or activities for which large, covered funds
were expended or obligated; and (4) detailed information on any level of sub-
contracts or sub-grants awarded by the covered recipient or its sub-recipients.
13
P.L. 116-260 (December 27, 2020). The covered period end date of the CRF was extended through
December 31, 2021 by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. The covered period end date for
tribal entities was further extended to December 31, 2022 by the State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial
Fiscal Recovery, Infrastructure, and Disaster Relief Flexibility Act, Division LL of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2023, P.L. 117-328, December 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 4459.
14
Section 15011 of P.L. 116-136, the CARES Act, defined a covered recipient as any entity that
received large, covered funds and included any State, the District of Columbia, and any territory or
possession of the United States.
15
Section 15010 of P.L. 116-136, the CARES Act, defined covered funds as any funds, including
loans, that were made available in any form to any non-Federal entity, not including an individual,
under Public Laws 116-123, 127, and 136, as well as any other law which primarily made
appropriations for Coronavirus response and related activities.
16
Section 15011 of P.L. 116-136 defined large, covered funds as covered funds that amounted to
more than $150,000.
5
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
The CARES Act assigned Treasury OIG the responsibility for compliance
monitoring and oversight of the receipt, disbursement, and use of CRF proceeds.
Treasury OIG also has the authority to recoup funds in the event that it is
determined a recipient failed to comply with requirements of subsection 601(d) of
the Social Security Act, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 801(d)).
Desk Review Results
Financial Progress Reports
We reviewed Kiowa Tribe’s quarterly FPRs through September 30, 2022, and
found that Kiowa Tribe timely filed its quarterly FPRs in the GrantSolutions portal
in compliance with Treasury OIG’s reporting requirements for the periods ending
June 30, 2020 through September 30, 2022.
Financial Reporting Control Issues
Kiowa Tribe provided their overall general ledger (GL) detail populations that
agreed to the total CRF proceeds of $22,586,666. However, due to
misclassifications, we could not agree the underlying GL detail populations to the
amounts reported in the GrantSolutions portal for its Contracts greater than or
equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate
Payments to Individuals payment types. We have included a summary of the
balances that Kiowa Tribe should have reported in the GrantSolutions portal
below, which did not comply with Treasury’s Guidance. However, since these
misclassifications did not affect the total amount claimed in the GrantSolutions
portal, we did not consider these to be questioned costs.
Cumulative
Cumulative Expenditures
Expenditures per Per GL
Payment Type
FPR Populations Difference
Contracts >= $50,000 $ 9,163,388 $ 9,197,338 $ (33,949)
Grants >= $50,000 $ - $ - $ -
Loans >= $50,000 $ - $ - $ -
Transfers >= $50,000 $ - $ - $ -
Direct Payments >= $50,000 $ - $ - $ -
Aggregate Reporting < $50,000 $ 450,928 $ 583,528 $ (132,600)
Aggregate Payments to
Individuals (in any amount) $ 12,972,350 $ 12,805,800 $ 166,549
Totals $ 22,586,666 $ 22,586,666 $ -
6
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
Summary of Testing Results
We found that the expenditures related to the Contracts greater than or equal
to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate Payments to
Individuals payment types did not comply with the CARES Act and Treasury’s
Guidance because we were unable to determine if all tested expenditures were
necessary due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, were not accounted for
in the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020, and were incurred
during the covered period. The transactions selected for testing were not selected
statistically, and therefore results could not be extrapolated to the total universe
of transactions.
Within Table 1 below, we have included a summary of $7,149,952 in unsupported
and ineligible expenditures identified as questioned costs through our testing of
detailed transactions, which did not comply with the CARES Act and Treasury’s
Guidance. Castro also identified other matters throughout the course of our desk
review procedures which we considered to be questioned costs that were not part
of our testing of detailed transactions. Table 2 below combines the questioned
costs identified in Table 1 with the other questioned costs of $1,381,202 identified
separately from our detailed transaction testing to account for total questioned
costs of $8,531,154. See the Desk Review Results section below Table 2 for a
detailed discussion of questioned costs and other issues identified throughout the
course of our desk review.
Table 1 - Summary of Expenditures Testing and Recommended Results
As of September 30, 2022
Corrected
Cumulative
Expenditure Cumulative Unsupported
GL Expenditure Tested Ineligible Tested Total Tested
Populations Tested Questioned Questioned Questioned
Payment Type Amount Amount Costs Costs Costs
Contracts >= $50,000 $ 9,197,338 $ 7,319,569 $ 6,982,563 $ 124,535 $ 7,107,098
Grants >= $50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Loans >= $50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Transfers >= $50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Direct Payments >=
$50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Aggregate Reporting <
$50,000 $ 583,528 $ 1,832 $ 1,832 $ - $ 1,832
Aggregate Payments to
Individuals (in any
amount) $ 12,805,800 $ 41,022 $ 39,162 $ 1,860 $ 41,022
Totals $ 22,586,666 $ 7,362,423 $ 7,023,557 $ 126,395 $ 7,149,952
7
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
Table 2 - Summary of Tested and Other Matters Identified Questioned Costs
As of September 30, 2022
(B)
Unsupported (E)
(A) Questioned (C = A+B) Ineligible
Unsupported Costs Total (D) Questioned (F=D+E)
Questioned Real Estate Unsupported Ineligible Costs Hardship Total Ineligible (G=C+F)
Costs Purchase Questioned Questioned Analysis Questioned Total Questioned
Payment Type (Tested) (Other Matter) Costs Costs (Tested) (Other Matter) Costs Costs
Contracts >= $50,000 $ 6,982,563 $ 727,002 $ 7,709,565 $ 124,535 $ - $ 124,535 $ 7,834,100
Grants >= $50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Loans >= $50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Transfers to Other
Government Agencies >=
$50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Direct Payments => $50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Aggregate Reporting <
$ -
$50,000 $ 1,832 $ 1,832 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,832
Aggregate Payments to
$ -
Individuals (in any amount) $ 39,162 $ 39,162 $ 1,860 $ 654,200 $ 656,060 $ 695,222
Totals $ 7,023,557 $ 727,002 $ 7,750,559 $ 126,395 $ 654,200 $ 780,595 $ 8,531,154
8
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
Contracts Greater Than or Equal to $50,000
We determined Kiowa Tribe’s Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 did not
comply with the CARES Act and Treasury’s Guidance. We tested a total of
$7,319,569 in transaction expenditures for eight contracts and identified six
exceptions. The transactions tested included expenditures for hotel rooms for the
Kiowa Tribe COVID-19 response team to use as an off-site office and center to
support essential functions for critical services to tribal citizens during emergency
and non-emergency conditions in an effort to help mitigate disruption; purchases
of personal protective equipment (i.e., supplies, disinfectant spray, air purification
units); real estate purchases; building renovations; and attorney’s fees.
We identified total tested questioned costs of $7,107,098, which consisted of
tested ineligible costs of $124,535 and tested unsupported questioned costs of
$6,982,563, respectively, as detailed below. We also identified other matter
unsupported questioned costs of $727,002 that increased our unsupported
questioned costs to $7,709,565, resulting in total questioned costs of $7,834,100.
Contract Acquisition of Property and Construction Costs Exceptions Summary
(Contract Exception #’s 1-5)
We noted Kiowa Tribe executed multiple contracts to acquire property or procure
construction services for building retrofits during the pandemic. Kiowa Tribe
management asserted the acquisition of property and retrofits to these buildings
were related to the COVID-19 response efforts. Upon inspection of the supporting
documentation provided, we determined Kiowa Tribe management failed to
provide adequate evidence to justify the expenditures were eligible and allowable
in conformity with the CARES Act and Treasury’s Guidance. We requested Kiowa
Tribe management provide the following supporting documents to satisfy
Castro’s transaction selections:
Fully executed real estate contracts;
Listing of buyers final closing costs (settlement);
Transfer of ownership documentation;
Cost Effective Analysis (Fair Market Value Analysis of Property);
Invoices to support the construction costs;
External proof of payment such as wire transfers or checks;
Justification/narrative statements on how Kiowa Tribe determined that
these expenditures were necessary due to the public health emergency with
respect to COVID-19; and
an explanation on how it was determined that the expenditures were not
accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020.
9
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
For all five contracts, we noted Kiowa Tribe did not provide documentation of any
considerations of other cost-effective alternatives, such as leasing property or
improving property already owned. Therefore, we are questioning the entire
amount tested for each contract. We also were not provided some of the above
requested documentation for certain of the contracts to verify eligibility, which is
discussed in Table 3 below. Treasury’s Guidance in the Federal Register Notice
Volume 86, Number 10, for the CRF, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) #58, 17
states that "a government must (i) determine that it is not able to meet the need
arising from the public health emergency in a cost-effective manner by leasing
property or equipment or by improving property already owned and (ii) maintain
documentation to support this determination." As a result, we identified
exceptions related to five contracts totaling $6,919,819 of unsupported questioned
costs.
17
Treasury's Guidance in the Federal Register Notice Volume 86, Number 10, for the CRF, FAQ
#58, stated: “May payments from the Fund be used for real property acquisition and
improvements and to purchase equipment to address the COVID-19 public health emergency? The
expenses of acquiring or improving real property and of acquiring equipment (e.g., vehicles)
may be covered with payments from the Fund in certain cases. For example, Treasury's initial
guidance referenced coverage of the costs of establishing temporary public medical facilities
and other measures to increase COVID-19 treatment capacity, including related construction costs,
as an eligible use of funds. Any such use must be consistent with the requirements of section
601(d) of the Social Security Act as added by the CARES Act. As with all uses of payments from
the Fund, the use of payments to acquire or improve property is limited to that which is necessary
due to the COVID- 19 public health emergency. In the context of acquisitions of real estate and
acquisitions of equipment, this means that the acquisition itself must be necessary. In particular,
a government must (i) determine that it is not able to meet the need arising from the public health
emergency in a cost-effective manner by leasing property or equipment or by improving property
already owned and (ii) maintain documentation to support this determination. Likewise, an
improvement, such as the installation of modifications to permit social distancing, would need to
be determined to be necessary to address the COVID-19 public health emergency.”
10
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
Table 3 – Contracts Exception #’s 1-5 Summary
Unsupported
Contracts Exception Contract Description Amount
Questioned
Number (Acquired Property/Construction Costs) Tested
Costs
Kiowa Tribe claimed $5,649,506 in contract expenditures related
to construction costs of a Kiowa Tribe COVID-19 Response
Program Center/Senior Center that was utilized for tasks needed
Contract Exception to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic such as additional office
#1 – Real Estate space to provide sufficient space between individuals when
Purchase for COVID- emergency situations such as ice storms require individuals to
$ 4,922,504 $ 4,922,504
19 Response congregate during COVID. Castro tested five invoices totaling
Program/Senior $4,922,504 related to this contract. We received four invoices for
Center $4,640,504 that agreed to the amounts claimed but were not
provided an invoice for $282,000 of the amount tested. Also,
Kiowa Tribe did not provide a sufficient justification that the
purchase of a $5.6 million building was needed due to COVID-19.
Kiowa Tribe claimed and Castro tested $950,000 in expenditures
related to a contract to purchase two buildings for Continuity of
Operations. Continuity of Operations was a directive of the Kiowa
Tribe’s Safety Management Plan to continue performance of
Contract Exception
essential functions under a broad range of circumstances,
#2 – Real Estate
including to provide storge of an emergency food supply, as well
Purchase for Two $ 950,000 $ 950,000
as a command center. Kiowa Tribe did not provide a complete
Continuity of
and fully executed, signed contract; final closing cost documents;
Operations Buildings
evidence of the transfer of ownership; and external proof of
payment, such as a wire transfer receipt or a canceled check.
Without these details, we had insufficient support that Kiowa
Tribe purchased these properties.
Kiowa Tribe claimed and Castro tested $686,088 in contract
Contract Exception
expenditures related to four invoices for the purchase of an
#3 - Real Estate
additional continuity of operations building. The building was a
Purchase of
directive of the Kiowa Tribe Safety Management Plan to continue $ 686,088 $ 686,088
Additional Continuity
performance of essential functions for COVID-19 operations.
of Operations
Kiowa Tribe did not provide a sufficient justification that the
Building
expenditures were needed due to COVID-19.
Contract Exception Kiowa Tribe claimed and Castro tested three invoices totaling
#4 - Renovations of $109,219 in contract expenditures related to renovation of the
Additional Continuity Continuity of Operations building related to Exception #3. Kiowa $ 109,219 $ 109,219
of Operations Tribe did not provide an invoice to support the renovation
Building expenditures claimed.
Kiowa Tribe claimed and Castro tested one invoice for $252,008
of contract expenditures related to a purchase of an additional
Contract Exception
Continuity of Operations building to provide emergency food and
#5 - Real Estate
a location for tribal citizens to submit applications for assistance.
Purchase of
Kiowa Tribe did not provide a bilaterally signed final master $ 252,008 $ 252,008
Additional Continuity
settlement statement or the title document showing that Kiowa
of Operations
Tribe was the new owner of this property. Without this detail,
Building
Castro could not determine whether the transaction was fully
completed, to include transfer of ownership of the property.
Total $ 6,919,819 $ 6,919,819
11
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
The above contracts were for 5 separate buildings. Castro provided Kiowa Tribe
management ample time to respond to our follow-up requests for the
aforementioned documents and documentation of any considerations of other
cost-effective alternatives to support that it was more cost-effective for the Kiowa
Tribe to purchase instead of leasing the property or improve property already
owned. Without this detail, we did not obtain sufficient information to determine if
Kiowa Tribe complied with Treasury’s Guidance. As a result, we identified
unsupported questioned costs of $6,919,819 related to the above five contracts.
Other Matter for Treasury OIG Consideration – Additional Questioned Costs
Related to the Purchase for COVID-19 Response Program Center/Senior Center
Castro tested $4,922,504 that Kiowa Tribe claimed under the $5,649,506 contract
related to construction of the COVID-19 Response Program Center/Senior Center,
as stated above for Contracts Exception #1. We also question the remaining
$727,002 of the contract as unsupported, because Kiowa Tribe did not provide
Castro with documentation of any considerations of other cost-effective
alternatives to support that it was more cost-effective to purchase this building
rather than leasing or improving property already owned.
Contract Exception #6 - Legal and Compliance Services
Kiowa Tribe claimed $199,957 in contract expenditures related to legal and
compliance services for the following: all legal fees for Kiowa Tribe receiving and
reviewing forensic audit resolutions, COVID-19 related discussions and decisions,
mileage charges, time spent reviewing contracts, time spent reviewing the Kiowa
Tribe constitution, and time spent reviewing and delivering weekly reports. Castro
tested five invoices totaling $187,279 in expenditures that Kiowa Tribe claimed
under this $199,957 contract. We received four invoices for $124,535 that agreed
to amounts claimed, but Kiowa Tribe did not provide an invoice for $62,744 of the
$187,279 tested.
For the four invoices received and tested, Castro noted the itemized descriptions
on the invoices included various tasks performed by the law firm Kiowa Tribe
hired for services regarding resolutions for a forensic audit, discussions regarding
the discharge of employees, and the impeachment of the former Kiowa Tribe
Chairman.
Castro requested justification for how Kiowa Tribe personnel determined these
legal fees to be eligible, but Kiowa Tribe did not sufficiently respond to our
requests. As such, Castro performed independent online research for litigative
issues between Kiowa Tribe and the former Chairman and found that Kiowa Tribe
allegedly accused the former Chairman of mishandling the Tribe’s CRF proceeds,
12
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
wrongfully terminating Kiowa Tribe gaming employees, failing to go through the
proper process on the annual tribal audit, failing to ensure that the Kiowa Tribe
Treasurer was properly bonded, providing salary increases without approval, and
the wrongful and unapproved appointment of an Executive Director. Based on the
invoiced tasks mentioned above, it appeared that the legal fees tested were due to
the former Chairman’s alleged illegal use of COVID-19 proceeds. As such, Castro
determined the support provided by Kiowa Tribe did not demonstrate these
expenditures were necessary to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and we
question $124,535 as ineligible. Kiowa Tribe also did not provide one of five
invoices totaling $62,744. As such, Castro questions costs of $62,744 as
unsupported.
Other Matter for Treasury OIG Consideration – Additional Potential Questioned
Costs Related to the Legal and Compliance Services Contract
We recommend Treasury OIG follow-up with Kiowa Tribe for the $12,678 of
additional contract costs that were not yet tested within our desk review related to
payment of attorney’s fees related to the legal and compliance services contract to
determine if there are additional unsupported or ineligible questioned costs.
Aggregate Reporting Less Than $50,000
We determined Kiowa Tribe’s Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000 did not
comply with the CARES Act and Treasury’s Guidance. We tested one aggregate
reporting transaction totaling $1,832 and identified an exception, resulting in
unsupported questioned costs totaling $1,832, as detailed below. The aggregate
reporting transaction tested included expenses for payments made to reimburse a
tribal citizen for car payments through the Kiowa Tribe Emergency Assistance
Program.
Also, Castro identified reporting misclassification errors that did not comply with
Treasury's Guidance, where transactions were reported in the Aggregate
Reporting less than $50,000 payment type within the GrantSolutions portal but
should have been classified in the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment
type.
13
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
Aggregate Reporting Exception - Hardship Reimbursement for Car Payments
For the one transaction tested totaling $1,832, Kiowa Tribe spent CRF proceeds for
an Emergency Assistance Program payment made to reimburse a tribal citizen for
car payments. Castro reviewed the tribal citizen’s completed General Assistance
Program (GAP)18 hardship application, household monthly income statement (Pre-
COVID-19 and Post-COVID-19), justification letter from the tribal citizen detailing
the hardship experienced due to COVID-19, vehicle sales contract, and a canceled
check. Castro noted that the amounts on the supporting documentation agreed to
amounts claimed without exception.
Castro followed up with Kiowa Tribe to obtain all past requirements for the GAP
and the Emergency Assistance Program, but Kiowa Tribe did not sufficiently
respond to this request. Castro searched the Kiowa Tribe's website to get more
eligibility requirements for each program. The Emergency Assistance Program
application explicitly stated, "The Kiowa Tribe Emergency Assistance Program is
available to all Kiowa Tribal Members 18 years and older. The program begins
July 1st through June 30th every year. All applicants must complete their own
application. The Emergency Assistance Program will only pay up to $250."
On Kiowa's website, the general requirements for the Emergency Assistance
Program were as follows: a completed application, Certificate of Degree of Indian
Blood, and current bill from a utility company, current medical bill and/or invoice
for medical supplies, or lease agreement, and landlord's W-919 for rent assistance.
Castro noted that car payments were not listed explicitly as an eligible expense
under the program. Castro followed up with Kiowa Tribe to obtain the underlying
documents to support eligibility (such as Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood)
and verification of loss of income, evidence of past due car payments, and how
the hardship payment amount of $1,832 was determined. Kiowa Tribe did not
provide any response to our requests by the end of fieldwork. Castro considers
the evidence provided by Kiowa Tribe insufficient to support the amount claimed
and as a result, we question the $1,832 as unsupported.
18
To reduce the number of applications tribal citizens were required to complete to receive
hardship assistance, Kiowa Tribe designed their GAP, which was a broad hardship application
program tailored to help applicants apply for CRF funding. When a tribal citizen applied to the
GAP, Kiowa Tribe reviewed the GAP application and performed a search on the tribal citizen’s
behalf to determine eligibility and make awards under the hardship programs for which the citizen
qualified. Therefore, some tribal citizens may not have applied directly to the hardship programs if
they chose to apply to the GAP. See Hardship Analysis below within the Aggregate Payments to
Individuals section for additional information on Kiowa Tribe’s hardship program costs claimed as
CRF expenditures.
19
A W-9 is a U.S. Internal Revenue Service document utilized to obtain the tax identification
number of an individual or business entity and is utilized for eligibility verification purposes.
14
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
Other Matter Recommended Follow-Up: Hardship Program Payment Reported in
Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000
Kiowa Tribe claimed expenses related to an Emergency Assistance Program
hardship payment within its Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000 payment type
that should have been reported within the Aggregate Payments to Individuals
payment type, which did not comply with Treasury’s Guidance. We recommend
Treasury OIG request that the Kiowa Tribe perform an analysis over its Aggregate
Reporting less than $50,000 claimed costs to determine if there were any
additional hardship payments included within that payment type. Based on the
results of this assessment, we recommend that Treasury OIG consider the
feasibility of performing additional testing over these balances.
Aggregate Payments to Individuals
CRF payments made to individuals, regardless of amount, were required to be
reported in the aggregate in the GrantSolutions portal to prevent inappropriate
disclosure of personally identifiable information. Castro notes that Aggregate
Payments to Individuals consists of the following broad types of potential costs
which we have defined from the Treasury’s Guidance as published in the Federal
Register.20 Prime recipients may or may not have claimed all of these types of
expenditures.
20
CRF Guidance as published in the Federal Register (January 15, 2021).
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/CRF-Guidance-Federal-Register_2021-00827.pdf
15
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
Public Safety/Health Payroll21 – consisted of payroll costs for public health
and safety department personnel.
Substantially Dedicated Payroll22 – consisted of payroll costs for non-
public health and safety personnel who were substantially dedicated to
mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency.
Non-Substantially Dedicated Payroll23 – consisted of payroll costs for
personnel who performed COVID-19 related tasks on a part-time basis.
Non-Payroll Expenditures – consisted of financial assistance payments to
citizens due to hardship or loss of income, unemployment claims, and
other non-payroll related expenditures made to individuals.
21
Treasury’s Federal Register guidance provided the following examples of public health and
safety employees: “police officers (including state police officers), sheriffs and deputy sheriffs,
firefighters, emergency medical responders, correctional and detention officers, and those who
directly support such employees such as dispatchers and supervisory personnel… employees
involved in providing medical and other health services to patients and supervisory personnel,
including medical staff assigned to schools, prisons, and other such institutions, and other support
services essential for patient care (e.g., laboratory technicians) as well as employees of public
health departments directly engaged in matters related to public health and related supervisory
personnel.”
22
Substantially dedicated payroll costs meant that personnel must have dedicated over 50 percent
of their time to responding or mitigating COVID-19. Treasury’s Federal Register guidance indicated
that: “The full amount of payroll and benefits expenses of substantially dedicated employees may
be covered using payments from the Fund. Treasury has not developed a precise definition of
what "substantially dedicated" means given that there is not a precise way to define this term
across different employment types. The relevant unit of government should maintain
documentation of the "substantially dedicated" conclusion with respect to its employees.”
23
Payroll costs that were not substantially dedicated were payroll costs that were not public health
and safety, and which were not substantially dedicated to performing COVID-19 related tasks.
Treasury’s Federal Register guidance defined more stringent tracking requirements for these types
of payroll costs. Specifically, Treasury’s Federal Register guidance stated: “track time spent by
employees related to COVID-19 and apply Fund payments on that basis but would need to do so
consistently within the relevant agency or department. This means, for example, that a
government could cover payroll expenses allocated on an hourly basis to employees' time
dedicated to mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency.”
16
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
Kiowa Tribe’s Aggregate Payments to Individuals balance consisted of payroll
transactions from the following categories of claimed costs.
Aggregate Payments to Individuals Total Expenses
Category Types24 Claimed
Substantially Dedicated Payroll $ 545,495
Non-Substantially Dedicated Payroll $ 426,942
Non-Payroll Expenditures $ 11,833,363
Totals25 $ 12,805,800
Castro tested substantially dedicated payroll transactions by reviewing the prime
recipient’s "substantially dedicated" conclusion with respect to its employees and
payroll distribution files, and also by performing tests over specific employee
timesheet submissions. Castro tested non-substantially dedicated payroll
transactions by reviewing payroll distribution files, and by performing tests over
specific employee timesheet submissions.
24
Kiowa Tribe did not report any public health and safety payroll within its Aggregate Payments to
Individuals payment type, and so these were not included within the Aggregate Payments to
Individuals Category Types.
25
Castro attempted to reconcile the expenditures identified within the GrantSolutions portal to
the GL detail provided by Kiowa Tribe and although there wasn’t an overall variance resulting in
any questioned costs, Castro did identify misclassifications between GL details and amounts
reported in the GrantSolutions portal. The amount reported by Kiowa Tribe in its
FPR for Aggregate Payments to Individuals was $12,972,350, but the amount reported in
its GL details was $12,805,800. Castro did not consider this misclassification error to be
a questioned cost because the total amount claimed did not change. We utilized the amounts
reported by Kiowa Tribe in the GL details for transaction testing purposes. See Financial Reporting
Control Issues section above for additional discussion.
17
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
We determined that Kiowa Tribe's Aggregate Payments to Individuals did not
comply with the CARES Act and Treasury’s Guidance. We tested 11 transactions
totaling $41,022, which consisted of the following: one substantially dedicated
payroll, one non-substantially dedicated hazard pay entry, and nine non-payroll
hardship transactions, please see Kiowa Tribe Hardship Summary below for
hardship programs. Castro identified exceptions for all 11 transactions selected
for testing, and identified total questioned costs of $41,022, which consisted of
total ineligible costs of $1,860 and total unsupported costs of $39,162,
respectively. We also identified other matter ineligible questioned costs of
$654,200 that increased our ineligible questioned costs to $656,060, resulting in
total questioned costs of $695,222. See Other Matter for Treasury OIG
Consideration – Hardship Analysis of Aggregate Payments to Individuals section
below for additional discussion.
Kiowa Tribe Hardship Summary
Kiowa Tribe claimed costs for the following four types of hardship programs as
CRF expenditures primarily within its Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment
type, but also in the Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000 payment type. 26
1. Food Voucher Assistance Program for tribal citizens who qualified based on
household size.
2. Pay My Bills Program, which was limited to a one-time $500 payment per
household to assist tribal citizens and prevent utility cut-offs, restore
services, or to bring certain personal financial obligations current.
3. Elderly Emergency Assistance Program that offered $900 to each citizen of
the Tribe over the age of 62 years old.
4. Emergency Assistance Program that paid eligible tribal citizens $1,000 due
to financial hardship endured from loss of income and increased costs due
to COVID-19.
26
Castro identified one Emergency Assistance Program hardship payment made to a tribal citizen
to assist with a car payment, which was reported within the Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000
payment type and should have been reported within the Aggregate Payments to Individuals
payment type. Due to the reporting classification error, this additional payment was not captured
in Castro’s below hardship analysis of the Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type.
18
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
Other Matter for Treasury OIG Consideration – Hardship Analysis of Aggregate
Payments to Individuals
Castro identified a total of $11,833,363 of hardship program payments charged to
the CRF in the Kiowa Tribe’s GL details for their four hardship programs. Castro
performed detailed testing on a total of $18,272 of hardship program payments
across all four programs and questioned all $18,272 of payments tested, as
detailed below in the Aggregate Payments to Individuals testing results section.
Additionally, Castro performed an analysis of Kiowa Tribe’s total hardship
program payments to determine whether the overall balances presented
increased risk of ineligible uses of the CRF. Castro summarized the results of our
testing of hardship payments and our hardship analysis in Table 4 below.
19
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
Table 4 - Analysis of Aggregate Payments to Individuals Total Hardship Program Payments
Questioned Other Matter
Costs Recommended
Pre-March 27, Other (Combined TOIG Total
2020 Tested Matter Tested and Follow-Up Payments
Hardship Additional GL Detail Budgeted Questioned Questioned Other (No Questioned to Tribal
Program Description Amount Amount Costs Costs Matter) Costs) Citizens
Food Voucher
Assistance Up to $2,500 based on
Program household size $ 1,754,420 $ 241,296 $ 10,853 $ - $ 10,853 $ 230,443 3,657
Up to $500 per
Pay My Bills household payment
Program for bills assistance $ 3,030,377 $ - $ 3,291 $ - $ 3,291 $ - 6,422
Elderly
Emergency Payment up to $900
Assistance for tribal citizens over
Program 62 years old $ 657,328 $ 919,000 $ 3,128 $ 654,200 $ 657,328 $ - 2,229
Emergency Up to $1,000 payment
Assistance due to financial
Program hardship $ 6,391,238 $ 350,000 $ 1,000 $ - $ 1,000 $ 349,000 5,601
Grand Total $11,833,363 $ 1,510,296 $ 18,272 $ 654,200 $ 672,472 $ 579,443 17,909
20
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
Hardship Analytic Results and Other Matter Additional Identified Questioned
Costs: Elderly Emergency Assistance Program
During Castro’s testing of individual hardship payments, Castro inquired whether
Kiowa Tribe performed an individual assessment for hardship applicants to
evidence the need for the payments. Kiowa Tribe provided Castro with
applications signed by hardship applicants and Castro verified that hardship
applications were required for all hardship programs, except for the Elderly
Emergency Assistance Program. Castro determined that Kiowa Tribe paid all
elders 62 years of age and older up to $900 without tribal citizens having to apply
for the assistance. In response to our follow-ups, Kiowa Tribe explained that they
had an enrollment database for all tribal citizens over 62 years old. The enrollment
clerk sent the elderly enrollment list to the Tribe’s Department of Finance for all
tribal citizens over the age of 62 by December 31, 2020. The Department of
Finance then processed the checks which were paid out to tribal citizens. Based on
the Tribe’s responses, Castro determined the Tribe’s Elderly Emergency
Assistance Program payments appeared to be per capita payments, which would
be an ineligible use of CRF based on Treasury’s Guidance that stated a “per capita
payment to residents of a particular jurisdiction without an assessment of
individual need would not be an appropriate use of payments from the Fund.”
Castro questioned $1,268 as unsupported costs and $1,860 as ineligible costs in
expenditures from our testing for a total of $3,128 in questioned costs. Castro also
identified $654,200 in other matter ineligible questioned costs for the Elderly
Emergency Assistance Program because of our hardship analysis resulting in a
total of $657,328 in unsupported and ineligible questioned costs.
Hardship Analytic Results and Other Matter Additional Follow-Up: Previously
Budgeted Food Voucher Assistance and Emergency Assistance Program Costs
During our testing procedures, Castro identified that Kiowa Tribe prepared a
budget on January 11, 2019, for fiscal years (FY) 2019 and 2020. Within this
budget, Kiowa Tribe budgeted FY 2020 expenditures of $350,000 for the
Emergency Assistance Program and $241,296 for the Food Voucher Assistance
Program. The CARES Act explicitly disallowed claiming costs that “were
accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020.” 27 After
excluding questioned costs already tested under these hardship programs, Castro
identified an additional $579,443 in hardship payment costs not yet questioned
27
Under the “Uses of Funds” requirements of Section 601(d) under Title VI of the Social Security
Act, as amended by the Title V of Division A of the CARES Act, “payments from the Fund may only
be used to cover costs that … were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of
March 27, 2020.”
21
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
through our desk review that may have been included in Kiowa Tribe’s FY 2020
budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020, as shown above in Table 4
above.
Castro recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of following up with
Kiowa Tribe over the $579,443 of additional hardship payments to determine
whether these amounts charged to the CRF included previously budgeted
expenditures and, if so, Castro recommends Treasury OIG recoup the funds or
request that Kiowa Tribe management provide support for eligible expenditures,
not previously charged to CRF, that were incurred during the period of
performance. This $579,443 in hardship payments consisted of $230,443 in Food
Voucher Assistance Program and $349,000 in Emergency Assistance Program
costs.
Substantially Dedicated Payroll Testing Exception – COVID-19 Call Center
Castro tested one substantially dedicated payroll entry related to time entries for
five employees totaling $12,195 in expenditures with Personnel Action Requests
coded to the "COVID-19 Call Center" department. Kiowa Tribe provided earnings
statements, payroll distribution reports, Personnel Action Forms, and timesheets
for the five selected employees; however, we noted the timesheets were not for
the correct pay period ending date and did not agree to the hours or time periods
for the CRF claimed expenditure amounts. We further requested activity logs and
timesheets elaborating on the tasks completed by these substantially dedicated
employees, to include descriptions of how those tasks related to COVID-19. Kiowa
Tribe personnel responded that they had migrated to a new payroll system and no
longer had access to the payroll system that was in place during the pandemic.
Castro considered these CRF expenditures to be unsupported because Kiowa
Tribe personnel were unable to provide us any timesheets or activity logs that
adequately supported our transaction selections or documentation of the Tribe’s
"substantially dedicated" conclusion with respect to its employees, as required by
Treasury’s Guidance.28 We questioned the entire amount tested of $12,195 as
unsupported.
28
Treasury’s Federal Register guidance indicated that: “The full amount of payroll and benefits
expenses of substantially dedicated employees may be covered using payments from the Fund.
Treasury has not developed a precise definition of what "substantially dedicated" means given that
there is not a precise way to define this term across different employment types. The relevant unit
of government should maintain documentation of the "substantially dedicated" conclusion with
respect to its employees.”
22
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
Non-Substantially Dedicated Payroll Testing Exception - Kiowa Tribe Chairman’s
Payroll
Kiowa Tribe claimed and Castro tested $10,555 for non-substantially dedicated
payroll costs for hazard pay to the former Chairman of Kiowa Tribe. The COVID-19
hazard pay timesheets and hazard pay calculation form included a total of 968
hours for the Chairman for the pay periods of May 29, 2020 through
December 15, 2020, which was higher than the 965 total hazard pay hours
associated with the payroll costs that Kiowa Tribe claimed in the GrantSolutions
portal. The executive branch memo received from Kiowa Tribe dated November
19, 2020 stated the following requirement over the hazard pay program costs,
"Those who worked remotely or those who worked but had no interaction with
the public will not be eligible for the second payment." Castro also noted that
even though the employee was claimed as non-substantially dedicated payroll,
Kiowa Tribe claimed all of the former Chairman’s hazard pay time as a CRF
expense.
The hazard pay timesheets provided did not include any details on the tasks
performed and how they related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Castro requested
activity logs and payroll generated timesheets elaborating on the tasks completed
by the former Chairman, to include descriptions of how those tasks related to
COVID-19 and to verify compliance with Kiowa Tribe’s hazard pay requirements.
We also requested earnings statements and a hazard pay justification. Kiowa
Tribe personnel responded that they had migrated to a new payroll system and no
longer had access to the payroll system that was in place during the pandemic.
They were unable to provide us any payroll system generated timesheets or
activity logs related to the transaction that we selected for testing. Castro
considered these CRF expenditures to be unsupported because Kiowa Tribe was
unable to provide us any payroll system generated timesheets or activity logs
with more detailed descriptions of tasks performed and justifications related to
our transaction selection. Additionally, Kiowa Tribe did not maintain any
documentation for the non-substantially dedicated payroll as required by
Treasury’s Federal Register, which stated that agencies must: “track time spent by
employees related to COVID-19 and apply Fund payments on that basis but would
need to do so consistently within the relevant agency or department. This means,
for example, that a government could cover payroll expenses allocated on an
hourly basis to employees' time dedicated to mitigating or responding to the
COVID-19 public health emergency.” We question the entire amount tested of
$10,555 as unsupported.
23
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
Non-Payroll Elder Emergency Assistance Program Testing Exception #’s 1-3
Exception #1
Kiowa Tribe claimed and Castro tested $1,268 in expenditures under their Elderly
Emergency Assistance Program. Based on the payment justification provided by
the Kiowa Tribe, all elders 62 and older received $900. Castro reviewed the
payment memo and utility shut off notices for a tribal citizen. Castro was unable to
agree the amount on the electricity shut off notice to the amount claimed in the
GrantSolutions portal. The shut off notice stated the total amount due was $1,668,
but the amount claimed was $1,268. Castro followed up with Kiowa Tribe to
request the following: an explanation of how Kiowa Tribe calculated the claimed
amount; an explanation as to why the tribal citizen received more than the $900
issued by the Elderly Emergency Assistance Program; hardship applications
signed and dated by the tribal citizen; and loss of income documentation. Kiowa
Tribe provided a partial response stating that the $900 Elderly Emergency
Assistance Program was a separate program that paid all elders regardless of
other assistance provided. Kiowa Tribe did not provide support related to our
other inquiries by the end of fieldwork. We question the entire amount tested of
$1,268 as unsupported.
Exception #2
Kiowa Tribe claimed and Castro tested $1,360 in expenditures under their Elderly
Emergency Assistance Program for rent and bills of a tribal citizen. Based on the
payment justification provided by the Kiowa Tribe, all elders 62 and older received
$900. Castro followed up with the Kiowa Tribe to request the following: an
explanation of how the Kiowa Tribe calculated the claimed amount of $1,360; an
explanation as to why the tribal citizen received more than the $900 issued by the
Elderly Emergency Assistance Program; hardship applications completed by the
tribal citizen; and underlying documentation related to the claimed amounts.
Castro noted that the tribal citizen’s GAP application listed that the applicant was
49 years old, and so we inquired as to how the Kiowa Tribe determined that this
individual met the Elderly Emergency Assistance program requirements given the
program was designed for elders aged 62 years and older. The Kiowa Tribe
provided a response stating that the tribal citizen was not an elder and did not
receive $900 related to the elderly payments. Castro reviewed the GL detail to
corroborate Kiowa Tribe’s response, but we noted that the tribal citizen received
three separate payments for the following three hardship programs: Food
Voucher Assistance Program, Pay My Bills Program, and Elderly Emergency
Assistance Program payments. Castro determined this transaction to be ineligible
because the applicant was not old enough to qualify for an Elderly Emergency
24
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
Assistance Program payment. We question the entire amount tested of $1,360 as
ineligible.
Exception #3
The Kiowa Tribe claimed and Castro tested $500 in expenditures under their
Elderly Emergency Assistance Program for “Christmas money” (this is the
transaction description coded in the Kiowa Tribe’s GL) distributed to a tribal
citizen. Based on the payment justification provided by the Kiowa Tribe, all elders
62 and older received $900. Castro reviewed the eligibility justification for the
payment, but the Kiowa Tribe did not provide any supporting documentation
related to the expenditure. Castro followed up with the Kiowa Tribe requesting a
signed and dated hardship application for the tribal citizen, any underlying
documents required to evidence hardship expenses incurred by the elder to justify
the need for an elderly hardship payment, evidence of underlying expenses or
receipts that show how the “Christmas money” was spent, and loss of income
documentation.
Kiowa Tribe personnel provided a partial response stating that no hardship
application was submitted and the tribal citizen did not receive any additional
payments. Kiowa Tribe personnel also stated that elders did not apply for elder
payments, but Kiowa Tribe had an enrollment database for all tribal citizens over
62 years old as of December 31, 2020. The Kiowa Tribe finance clerk processed the
checks for elders based on the enrollment database and sent them out to the
respective tribal citizens. This indicated that this transaction was a per capita
payment since no applications were required, which is explicitly disallowed per
the Federal Register. The Treasury’s Federal Register guidance stated: “per capita
payment to residents of a particular jurisdiction without an assessment of
individual need would not be an appropriate use of payments from the Fund.” We
question the entire amount tested of $500 as ineligible.
Non-Payroll Pay My Bills Program Testing Exception #’s 4 and 5
Exception #4
The Kiowa Tribe claimed and Castro tested $1,391 in expenditures under their Pay
My Bills Program. The Kiowa Tribe stated the Kiowa Tribe’s Tax Commission
initially paid the gas, internet, and electric bills for the Tribe’s COVID-19 Center
building, and then CRF proceeds were used to reimburse the Tax Commission for
the payments. The expenditures included the following bills incurred from June
2020 to July 2020: a natural gas bill in the amount of $215, an internet bill for $99,
an electric bill for partial usage for $102, and an electric bill for $975. Castro
reviewed the eligibility justification, utility bills, canceled checks, email
25
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
communications, and accounts payable vouchers. However, the Kiowa Tribe did
not provide any utility bill to support the electric bill of $975.
Castro requested that the Kiowa Tribe provide the missing utility bill, and signed
and dated hardship applications, but the Tribe was unable to provide sufficient
documentation that showed how these expenses were eligible for CRF
reimbursement under the Pay My Bills Program. Without the hardship application
and other missing support, we question the entire amount tested of $1,391 as
unsupported.
Exception #5
The Kiowa Tribe claimed and Castro tested $1,500 in expenditures to a tribal
citizen under their Pay My Bills Program. Castro reviewed the eligibility
justification, tribal citizen signed and dated hardship application, and accounts
payable vouchers for a tribal citizen related to the $1,500 in claimed expenditures.
After review of the supporting documents, Castro noted that the Kiowa Tribe did
not provide past due utility bills or any underlying documentation needed to
support that the tribal citizen needed utility assistance. Castro followed up with
the Kiowa Tribe requesting loss of income documentation, utility bills showing
amounts claimed were past due, and to provide the different program
requirements if this applicant had applied to multiple programs. The Kiowa Tribe
did not provide support related to our inquiries by the end of fieldwork. Without
this information, Castro could not verify these expenses were necessary due to
the pandemic and that the applicant met the Kiowa Tribe's Pay My Bills Program
requirements. We question the entire amount tested of $1,500 as unsupported.
Non-Payroll Hardship Food Voucher Assistance Program Testing Exception #’s 6
and 7
Exception #6
Castro tested a Food Voucher Assistance Program claimed transaction totaling
$1,500, where the Kiowa Tribe provided a GAP hardship application completed by
the tribal citizen. The Kiowa Tribe reviewed the GAP hardship application and
awarded the applicant a hardship payment under the Food Voucher Assistance
Program. This included a hardship applicant attestation to a $700 decrease in
income due to the pandemic and a $300 increase in food costs due to the
pandemic. The applicant did not provide any documentation to support increased
food costs or decreased income. Castro reviewed documentation provided by the
Kiowa Tribe from the accounting firm responsible for handling the Tribe's
application review and noted that it indicated that "there has to be some kind of
proof or documentation. Applicants MUST be able to prove:
26
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
A. Decrease in income; or
B. Increase in other expenses, leaving less money for food; or
C. Increase in food spending since March 2020 via receipts, bank statements, etc.;
or
D. All of the above."
Without underlying documentation evidencing the increase in food costs and the
decrease in income, Castro determined that the Kiowa Tribe did not ensure that
the applicant met its program requirements. Also, Castro could not determine that
this transaction represented an expense that was necessary due to the pandemic.
We question the entire amount tested of $1,500 as unsupported.
Exception #7
Castro tested a Food Voucher Assistance Program transaction where the Kiowa
Tribe claimed $8,153 in expenditures for a “big box” store vendor. Based on the
Kiowa Tribe's Food Voucher Assistance Program guidelines to receive the funds
from the program, an application was required to be processed and the amount
provided would be based on the household size. The Kiowa Tribe did not have a
hardship application for this transaction, and so Castro did not consider this
transaction to be appropriately coded as a hardship expenditure. Castro reviewed
various supporting documentation and was not able to agree the documentation
provided to the claimed expenditure amount. The Kiowa Tribe did not provide any
invoices related to the “big box” store, which was the vendor listed for our
transaction selection. Rather, the invoice provided was for a water and coffee
vendor for 22 pallets of drinking water. Castro requested an invoice for the “big
box” store selected transaction that agreed to the amount reported in its GL and
claimed in the GrantSolutions portal, but the Kiowa Tribe did not provide this
requested information by the end of fieldwork. We question the entire amount
tested of $8,153 as unsupported.
Combined Food Voucher Assistance Program, Pay My Bills Program, and
Emergency Assistance Program Payments Testing Exception #’s 8 and 9
For two non-payroll transactions tested, Kiowa Tribe claimed and Castro tested
$1,600 and $1,000 in expenditures, respectively, for a total of $2,600 in
transactions tested, as detailed below.
27
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
Exception #8
The Kiowa Tribe claimed $1,600 in expenditures, which consisted of $1,200 under
the Food Voucher Assistance Program and $400 under the Pay My Bills Program.
Castro reviewed various supporting documentation, but noted the Kiowa Tribe did
not follow its own guidelines of providing proof of income loss and increase in
applicant expenses. After review of the supporting documents, Castro also noted
that in the tribal citizen’s bank statements, their claimed Pay My Bills hardship
payment of $400 was for their incurred Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax
payment which was returned with a net cash outflow to the IRS of $0. Castro
reviewed the list of reasons for hardship and did not see tax payments listed
within the Pay My Bills hardship payment eligible expenses, as typical expenses
claimed within this hardship payment type included past due rent and utilities.
Castro followed up with the Kiowa Tribe requesting a determination as to why the
IRS tax payment was included in the hardship claimed amount, how the payment
was deemed eligible, and why the funds were claimed if the IRS payment was
returned. The Kiowa Tribe "could not determine" the answers to any of our follow-
up requests. Castro did not consider this response sufficient to support that these
hardship payments were needed and properly supported. We question the entire
amount tested of $1,600 as unsupported.
Exception #9
The Kiowa Tribe claimed $1,000 in expenditures under the Emergency Assistance
Program. Castro reviewed various supporting documentation; however, the Kiowa
Tribe did not provide the applicant’s proof of income loss and increase in
expenses, as required by the program’s guidelines, by the end of fieldwork. We
question the entire amount tested of $1,000 as unsupported.
28
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
Conclusion
We determined that the expenditures related to the Contracts greater than or
equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000, and Aggregate
Payments to Individuals payment types did not comply with the CARES Act and
Treasury’s Guidance.
We identified unsupported and ineligible questioned costs of $7,750,559 and
$780,595, respectively, resulting in total questioned costs of $8,531,154. Also, we
identified GrantSolutions portal misclassification reporting issues related to the
Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000,
and Aggregate Payment to Individuals payment types that did not comply with
Treasury’s Guidance.
Additionally, Kiowa Tribe’s risk of unallowable use of funds is high.
Castro recommends that Treasury OIG follow-up with Kiowa Tribe’s management
to confirm if the $7,750,559 noted as unsupported expenditures within the
Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000,
and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types can be supported. If
support is not provided, Treasury OIG should recoup the funds or request Kiowa
Tribe management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously
charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance.
In addition, Castro recommends that Treasury OIG request Kiowa Tribe
management to provide support for replacement expenses, not previously
charged, that were eligible during the CRF period of performance for the $780,595
of ineligible costs charged to the Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000 and
Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types. If support is not provided,
Treasury OIG should recoup the funds.
Further, based on Kiowa Tribe’s responsiveness to Treasury OIG’s requests and
its ability to provide sufficient documentation and/or replace unsupported and
ineligible transactions charged to CRF with valid expenditures, Castro
recommends Treasury OIG determine the feasibility of conducting an audit for the
Contracts greater than or equal to $50,000, Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000,
and Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment types.
29
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
Castro also identified other matters throughout the course of our desk review,
which warrant recommendations to Treasury OIG for additional action. Castro
recommends Treasury OIG follow-up on these issues:
Follow-up with Kiowa Tribe for the $12,678 of contract costs not yet
tested within our desk review related to payment of attorney’s fees to
determine if there are additional unsupported or ineligible questioned
costs.
As a result of our testing, Castro identified questioned costs within all of
Kiowa Tribe’s hardship payment types: Food Voucher Assistance
Program, Pay My Bills Program, Elderly Emergency Assistance Program,
and Emergency Assistance Program. We recommend Treasury OIG
determine the feasibility of performing additional follow-up with Kiowa
Tribe to determine if there were other instances of ineligible or
unsupported hardship balances within all four of the aforementioned
hardship payment types claimed within its Aggregate Payments to
Individuals payment type.
In addition, as it relates to the hardship payments charged to the
Aggregate Payments to Individuals payment type, Castro identified
$579,443 in hardship payment costs not yet questioned through our desk
review that may have been included in Kiowa Tribe’s most recently
approved budget as of March 27, 2020. Castro recommends Treasury OIG
determine the feasibility of following up with Kiowa Tribe over the
$579,443 of additional hardship payments to determine whether this
balance charged to the CRF included previously budgeted expenditures
and, if so, Castro recommends Treasury OIG recoup the funds or request
that Kiowa Tribe management provide support for replacement
expenses, not previously charged, that were eligible during the CRF
period of performance.
Kiowa Tribe claimed expenses related to a hardship payment to a tribal
citizen within its Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000 payment type
that was erroneously not included within its Aggregate Payments to
Individuals payment type. We recommend Treasury OIG request Kiowa
Tribe perform an analysis over its Aggregate Reporting less than $50,000
payment type claimed costs to determine if there are any additional
hardship payments included within that payment type. Based on the
results of this assessment, we recommend that Treasury OIG consider
the feasibility of performing additional testing over these balances.
30
Desk Review of Kiowa Tribe, Oklahoma
*****
All work completed with this letter complies with the Council of the Inspectors
General on Integrity and Efficiency’s Quality Standards for Federal Offices of
Inspectors General, which require that the work adheres to the professional
standards of independence, due professional care, and quality assurance to
ensure the accuracy of the information presented.29 We appreciate the courtesies
and cooperation provided to our staff during the desk review.
Sincerely,
Wayne Ference
Partner, Castro & Company, LLC
29
https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/files/files/Silver%20Book%20Revision%20-%208-20-12r.pdf
31