The Uniform Audit and Accounting Guide for Audits of Architecture and Engineering (A/E) Consulting Firms

Agenda Background Background OIG Audit Recommendations OIG Audit Recommendations Collaborative Effort Collaborative Effort Overview of the Updated Audit Guide Overview of the Updated Audit Guide Next Steps Next Steps

Background USDOT OIG Audit on Architectural & Engineering Firm Executive Compensation and Other Overhead Costs Billed to the Federal-aid Highway Program: USDOT OIG Audit on Architectural & Engineering Firm Executive Compensation and Other Overhead Costs Billed to the Federal-aid Highway Program: Audit initiated in 2004 Audit initiated in 2004 Report issued in February 2009 Report issued in February 2009

OIG Audit Recommendations Revise 23 CFR 172: Revise 23 CFR 172: Require A&E firms to certify cost allowability Require A&E firms to certify cost allowability Provide States penalty assessment authority Provide States penalty assessment authority Assign responsibility & accountability for overseeing CPA audits of A&E firms Assign responsibility & accountability for overseeing CPA audits of A&E firms Issue guidance for A&E firm procurement of CPAs Issue guidance for A&E firm procurement of CPAs Cost Recovery on questioned costs Cost Recovery on questioned costs Establish a process for monitoring & ensuring State implementation of NHS Act section 307 Establish a process for monitoring & ensuring State implementation of NHS Act section 307

OIG Audit Findings CPA’s did not perform sufficient transaction testing. CPA’s did not perform sufficient transaction testing. Unallowable costs. Unallowable costs. Unallowable executive compensation. Unallowable executive compensation. Audit services not effectively acquired. Audit services not effectively acquired. CPA’s did not have relevant training. CPA’s did not have relevant training. Oversight of CPA’s not effective. Oversight of CPA’s not effective.

Establishment The AASHTO Administrative Subcommittee on Internal and External Audit approved the establishment of the Uniform Audit and Accounting Guide Task Force to update the Guide during its 2007 Annual Meeting. The AASHTO Administrative Subcommittee on Internal and External Audit approved the establishment of the Uniform Audit and Accounting Guide Task Force to update the Guide during its 2007 Annual Meeting. FHWA joined in this effort. FHWA joined in this effort. Kicked off in August 2007 Kicked off in August 2007

Uniform Audit and Accounting Guide Task Force Representatives from fourteen state DOT audit agencies. Representatives from fourteen state DOT audit agencies. AASHTO AASHTO FHWA FHWA

Audit Guide Steering Committee Representatives from five state DOT agencies. Representatives from five state DOT agencies. Six A/E firms. Six A/E firms. AASHTO AASHTO ACEC ACEC FHWA FHWA

The Purpose of the Guide Update: Assure the Guide is consistent with current auditing standards and procedures, accounting principles, and Federal Regulation. Assure the Guide is consistent with current auditing standards and procedures, accounting principles, and Federal Regulation. Strengthen the Guide by providing additional guidance and clarification in regard to policy and procedures set forth in the Federal Regulations. Strengthen the Guide by providing additional guidance and clarification in regard to policy and procedures set forth in the Federal Regulations.

Identification of the Guidelines and Procedures that required updating Solicited input from: Task Force members. Task Force members. AASHTO Audit Subcommittee Members. AASHTO Audit Subcommittee Members. ACEC ACEC A/E Member Firms. A/E Member Firms. Public Accounting Firms. Public Accounting Firms. AASHTO AASHTO FHWA FHWA AICPA AICPA

The Guide is a Tool for: State Auditors. State Auditors. A/E Firms. A/E Firms. CPA Firms. CPA Firms.

The Guide’s focus is on auditing and reporting procedures applied to costs incurred by A/E firms for engineering and design related services on various federal, state, and local transportation projects. The Guide’s focus is on auditing and reporting procedures applied to costs incurred by A/E firms for engineering and design related services on various federal, state, and local transportation projects. Focus

Intention The Guide is not intended to be a detailed auditing procedures manual. The Guide is not intended to be a detailed auditing procedures manual. A guide to assist users in understanding terminology, policies, procedures, and audit techniques, along with Federal Regulations and their source. A guide to assist users in understanding terminology, policies, procedures, and audit techniques, along with Federal Regulations and their source. Users are cautioned to be aware that the FAR Cost Principles change frequently and the applicable version should be referenced in conjunction with the use of this Guide. Users are cautioned to be aware that the FAR Cost Principles change frequently and the applicable version should be referenced in conjunction with the use of this Guide.

Substantive Changes Chapter 2-Adequaqcy of Accounting Records Mgt is responsible to ensure that Federal and State DOT Auditors are granted full access to their CPA’s work papers. Mgt is responsible to ensure that Federal and State DOT Auditors are granted full access to their CPA’s work papers. The CPA is responsible for performing an audit or examination level attestation engagement in accordance with GAGAS, to obtain reasonable assurance that the engineering consultant complied with FAR Part 31 and applicable Cost Accounting Standards. The CPA is responsible for performing an audit or examination level attestation engagement in accordance with GAGAS, to obtain reasonable assurance that the engineering consultant complied with FAR Part 31 and applicable Cost Accounting Standards. Before accepting a FAR audit engagement, CPA’s must determine if they have the required specialized knowledge to complete the engagement -reference included to SAS 105. Before accepting a FAR audit engagement, CPA’s must determine if they have the required specialized knowledge to complete the engagement -reference included to SAS 105.

Substantive Changes Chapter 2, continued: Selection of a CPA Firm as the Overhead Auditor. Selection of a CPA Firm as the Overhead Auditor. The CPA must follow AICPA professional standards; must obtain sufficient, appropriate audit evidence to support their opinion; was the overhead schedule prepared in compliance with the FAR 31.2 Cost Principles. The CPA must follow AICPA professional standards; must obtain sufficient, appropriate audit evidence to support their opinion; was the overhead schedule prepared in compliance with the FAR 31.2 Cost Principles. Listing of factors for consideration in selecting a CPA is included. Listing of factors for consideration in selecting a CPA is included.

Substantive Changes Chapter 3-Standards for Attestations and Audits Auditing Standards Auditing Standards Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards apply to audits s audits of Federal-aid funds paid to engineering consultants. Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards apply to audits s audits of Federal-aid funds paid to engineering consultants.

Substantive Changes Chapter 4-Cost Principles Reasonableness and Allowability Reasonableness and Allowability FAR Provides a cost is allowable only when the cost complies with all of the following requirements: FAR Provides a cost is allowable only when the cost complies with all of the following requirements: Reasonableness. Reasonableness. Allocability. Allocability. Standards promulgated by the CAS Board, if applicable; otherwise, GAAP and practices appropriate to the circumstances. Standards promulgated by the CAS Board, if applicable; otherwise, GAAP and practices appropriate to the circumstances. Terms of the contract. Terms of the contract. Any limitations set forth in FAR Any limitations set forth in FAR

Substantive Changes Chapter 4, continued: FAR Provides the framework for addressing the reasonableness of costs: FAR Provides the framework for addressing the reasonableness of costs: Cost in its nature & amount, does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. Cost in its nature & amount, does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. No presumption of reasonableness. No presumption of reasonableness. If an initial review of the facts results in a challenge of a specific cost, the burden of proof is on the contractor to establish that such cost is reasonable. If an initial review of the facts results in a challenge of a specific cost, the burden of proof is on the contractor to establish that such cost is reasonable.

Substantive Changes Chapter 4, continued: Reasonable depends upon a variety of considerations and circumstances, including— Reasonable depends upon a variety of considerations and circumstances, including— Type of cost generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the conduct of the contractor’s business or the contract performance; Generally accepted sound business practices, arm’s length bargaining, and Federal and State laws and regulations; The contractor’s responsibilities to the Government, other customers, the owners of business, employees, and the public at large, and Any significant deviations from the contractor’s established practices.

Substantive Changes Chapter 5-Cost Accounting Discussion of Allocation Bases Discussion of Allocation Bases Accounting for Unallowable Costs in Allocation Bases Accounting for Unallowable Costs in Allocation Bases Costs Centers Costs Centers Addresses Allocated Costs Addresses Allocated Costs Internal Labor costs Internal Labor costs Direct Labor Direct Labor Uncompensated Overtime for Salaried Employees Uncompensated Overtime for Salaried Employees Overtime Premium Overtime Premium

Substantive Changes Chapter 5, continued: Field Office Rates Field Office Rates Table 5-5 Sample Overhead Schedule Table 5-5 Sample Overhead Schedule Table 5-6 Sample Overhead Schedule (With Field Rate) Table 5-6 Sample Overhead Schedule (With Field Rate) Table 5-7 Field Office Computations Table 5-7 Field Office Computations

Substantive Changes Chapter 6-Labor Charging Systems and Other Considerations Allowability and Reasonableness of Indirect Labor Allowability and Reasonableness of Indirect Labor DCAA Accounting Guide Referenced-Guidance on: DCAA Accounting Guide Referenced-Guidance on: Accounting System Accounting System Labor Charging System Labor Charging System Timecard Preparation Timecard Preparation Timekeeping Policy Timekeeping Policy A Labor Charging Checklist is included. A Labor Charging Checklist is included.

Substantive Changes Chapter 7-Compensation Guidance in the determination of reasonable compensation costs. Guidance in the determination of reasonable compensation costs. Revisions Include : Revisions Include : Steps to evaluate compensation reasonableness and perform a compensation analysis in compliance with FAR , the Techplan and Information System decisions. Steps to evaluate compensation reasonableness and perform a compensation analysis in compliance with FAR , the Techplan and Information System decisions. Determining reasonableness of compensation when an independent compensation analysis has not been performed. Guide discusses the creation of a National Compensation Matrix (NCM) to set parameters for reasonableness. The Task Force recommended that the NCM should be prepared under the direction, guidance, and authority of the FHWA. Determining reasonableness of compensation when an independent compensation analysis has not been performed. Guide discusses the creation of a National Compensation Matrix (NCM) to set parameters for reasonableness. The Task Force recommended that the NCM should be prepared under the direction, guidance, and authority of the FHWA.

Substantive Changes Chapter 7, continued: Differentiating between the processes required to determine reasonable compensation paid to Senior Executives, as defined in FAR (p)(2)(ii)(B), and other employees. Differentiating between the processes required to determine reasonable compensation paid to Senior Executives, as defined in FAR (p)(2)(ii)(B), and other employees. The comprehensiveness of compensation survey data as a fair representation of realistic, reasonable compensation for the A/E industry, continues to be an area of concern expressed by ACEC. The comprehensiveness of compensation survey data as a fair representation of realistic, reasonable compensation for the A/E industry, continues to be an area of concern expressed by ACEC.

Substantive Changes Chapter 7, continued: Related parties - The consultant is to provide a list of all related employees along with pertinent employee information including the employees’ names, position titles or job classifications, duties, total wages or salaries, bonuses paid, and total taxable fringe benefits. Related parties - The consultant is to provide a list of all related employees along with pertinent employee information including the employees’ names, position titles or job classifications, duties, total wages or salaries, bonuses paid, and total taxable fringe benefits. Auditors should review this information and evaluate whether there is a risk that the compensation paid to the related party is unreasonable and whether additional audit procedures and or adjustments are necessary. Auditors should review this information and evaluate whether there is a risk that the compensation paid to the related party is unreasonable and whether additional audit procedures and or adjustments are necessary.

Substantive Changes Chapter 7, continued: Criteria for Demonstrating Superior Performance. Criteria for Demonstrating Superior Performance. Special Consideration For Closely-Held Firms Special Consideration For Closely-Held Firms Bonus and Incentive Pay Plans Bonus and Incentive Pay Plans Fringe Benefits Fringe Benefits Supplemental Benefits Supplemental Benefits

Substantive Changes Chapter 8-Selected Areas of Cost Provides clarification, guidance, and tools to assist in determining allowable or unallowable costs, resulting in increased consistency in FAR cost interpretations nationwide. Provides clarification, guidance, and tools to assist in determining allowable or unallowable costs, resulting in increased consistency in FAR cost interpretations nationwide.

Substantive Changes Chapter 8, continued: Clarifications and/or additions in a number of areas, including: Clarifications and/or additions in a number of areas, including: Directly Associated Costs, Reasonableness, Direct Costs, and Burden of Proof. Directly Associated Costs, Reasonableness, Direct Costs, and Burden of Proof. Depreciation, Employee Welfare, Gains & Losses on Depreciable Property, Idle Facilities and Idle Capacity Cost, Precontract Cost, Insurance, Losses on Other Contracts, Retainer Agreements, Relocation Costs, Rent/Lease, Taxes, Travel, Goodwill, and Business Combination Costs. Depreciation, Employee Welfare, Gains & Losses on Depreciable Property, Idle Facilities and Idle Capacity Cost, Precontract Cost, Insurance, Losses on Other Contracts, Retainer Agreements, Relocation Costs, Rent/Lease, Taxes, Travel, Goodwill, and Business Combination Costs. The listing of common unallowable costs was updated. The listing of common unallowable costs was updated.

Substantive Changes Chapter 9-General Audit Considerations Auditors must exercise significant judgment in planning and performing engagements and must consider both the environment in which the engineering consultant operates and the adequacy of the consultant’s accounting systems and procedures to comply with Federal requirements. Auditors must exercise significant judgment in planning and performing engagements and must consider both the environment in which the engineering consultant operates and the adequacy of the consultant’s accounting systems and procedures to comply with Federal requirements. Auditors must consider specific Government regulations and individual contract provisions when designing, performing, and evaluating audit procedures. Auditors must consider specific Government regulations and individual contract provisions when designing, performing, and evaluating audit procedures.

Substantive Changes Chapter 9, continued: The wide variety of tools and publications available to provide guidance in determining the appropriate procedures, testing methods, and reporting formats is noted, referencing Appendix D – Listing of Resource Materials, and listing some publications that may be helpful. The wide variety of tools and publications available to provide guidance in determining the appropriate procedures, testing methods, and reporting formats is noted, referencing Appendix D – Listing of Resource Materials, and listing some publications that may be helpful. Provides additional guidance in regard to internal controls, estimating and proposal systems, cost accounting systems, audit risk and materiality and sampling. Provides additional guidance in regard to internal controls, estimating and proposal systems, cost accounting systems, audit risk and materiality and sampling.

Substantive Changes Chapter 10-Guidance for Developing Audit Procedures Before accepting a FAR audit report or examination-level attestation report, the Home State DOT or other reviewing State DOT must determine whether the auditor has adequately complied with the procedures described in Chapter 9 (General Audit Considerations) and performed adequate testing in compliance with the recommended minimum audit testing procedures discussed in the Guide. Before accepting a FAR audit report or examination-level attestation report, the Home State DOT or other reviewing State DOT must determine whether the auditor has adequately complied with the procedures described in Chapter 9 (General Audit Considerations) and performed adequate testing in compliance with the recommended minimum audit testing procedures discussed in the Guide.

Substantive Changes Chapter 10, continued: When employing a CPA firm (or other service provider/auditor) to audit a proposed overhead rate, the engineering consultant must inform the CPA that: When employing a CPA firm (or other service provider/auditor) to audit a proposed overhead rate, the engineering consultant must inform the CPA that: The audit should comply with AASHTO’s minimum recommended audit procedures, as discussed in the Guide. The audit should comply with AASHTO’s minimum recommended audit procedures, as discussed in the Guide.

Substantive Changes Chapter 10, continued: The CPA should consider meeting with representatives of the reviewing State DOT to discuss the audit process. The CPA should consider meeting with representatives of the reviewing State DOT to discuss the audit process.

Substantive Changes Chapter 10, continued: Planning and General Procedures Planning and General Procedures Audit work must meet professional standards (Government Auditing Standards and either Generally Accepted Auditing Standards or Attestation Standards), and the audit must be planned and performed to provide reasonable assurance that the overhead rate presented on the overhead schedule complies with the Cost Principles of FAR Part Audit work must meet professional standards (Government Auditing Standards and either Generally Accepted Auditing Standards or Attestation Standards), and the audit must be planned and performed to provide reasonable assurance that the overhead rate presented on the overhead schedule complies with the Cost Principles of FAR Part 31.2.

Substantive Changes Chapter 10, continued: Audit Sampling Audit Sampling The chapter presents some basics to be considered in designing an audit sample. The chapter presents some basics to be considered in designing an audit sample.

Substantive Changes Chapter 10, continued: Note: Before selecting a statistical audit sample using variable sampling techniques to test for unallowable cost items, auditors are expected to scan the engineering consultant’s general ledger so that large dollar or sensitive (LDS) transactions can be removed/stratified for complete examination, including verification to source documents. Note: Before selecting a statistical audit sample using variable sampling techniques to test for unallowable cost items, auditors are expected to scan the engineering consultant’s general ledger so that large dollar or sensitive (LDS) transactions can be removed/stratified for complete examination, including verification to source documents. The sampling universe should be limited to the group of items that remain after the LDS items have been removed. The sampling universe should be limited to the group of items that remain after the LDS items have been removed.

Substantive Changes Chapter 10, continued: The auditor should determine an appropriate sample size after considering the size of the firm, the auditor’s previous experience with the firm, the number of transactions and high-risk accounts in the indirect cost pool, and the assessed level of control risk. The test sample of an account balance or line item must be sufficient to comply with GAGAS Additionally, in accordance with SAS No. 111, the auditor should document the sampling plan, including factors used in the determination of sample sizes. The auditor should determine an appropriate sample size after considering the size of the firm, the auditor’s previous experience with the firm, the number of transactions and high-risk accounts in the indirect cost pool, and the assessed level of control risk. The test sample of an account balance or line item must be sufficient to comply with GAGAS Additionally, in accordance with SAS No. 111, the auditor should document the sampling plan, including factors used in the determination of sample sizes.

Substantive Changes Chapter 10, continued: Auditors are encouraged to apply sampling methods using a 95- percent confidence level with a precision level in the range of 2 to 5 percent. Auditors are encouraged to apply sampling methods using a 95- percent confidence level with a precision level in the range of 2 to 5 percent. All unallowable costs uncovered through audit testing must be removed from the overhead schedule, regardless of amount, as FAR Part 31 does not establish a tolerance level to permit any amount of unallowable costs to remain in the indirect cost pool. All unallowable costs uncovered through audit testing must be removed from the overhead schedule, regardless of amount, as FAR Part 31 does not establish a tolerance level to permit any amount of unallowable costs to remain in the indirect cost pool.

Substantive Changes Chapter 10, continued: Based on the assessed level of control risk, the auditor should determine an appropriate labor sample with a minimum of 26 timesheets chosen for testing across an appropriate mix of direct-charge employees, including supervisors and/or project managers. Based on the assessed level of control risk, the auditor should determine an appropriate labor sample with a minimum of 26 timesheets chosen for testing across an appropriate mix of direct-charge employees, including supervisors and/or project managers. In this context, “direct-charge employees” means any employees, supervisors, and/or principals who spend a portion of their time working on A/E projects.

Substantive Changes Chapter 10, continued: Note: An auditor who selects a smaller sample size than that recommended must include an adequate explanation in the workpapers to justify the deviation. If the State DOT conducting the review determines that the deviation is not properly justified, the State DOT may reject the overhead rate determined through the audit. Note: An auditor who selects a smaller sample size than that recommended must include an adequate explanation in the workpapers to justify the deviation. If the State DOT conducting the review determines that the deviation is not properly justified, the State DOT may reject the overhead rate determined through the audit.

Substantive Changes Chapter 10, continued: In situations where the auditor determines that additional testing beyond the LDS items is required, the remaining indirect costs in the high-risk accounts (the sampling universe) should be tested on a sample basis, using the sampling parameters recommended above in Section (A 95-percent confidence level with a precision level (materiality threshold) in the range of 2 to 5 percent). In situations where the auditor determines that additional testing beyond the LDS items is required, the remaining indirect costs in the high-risk accounts (the sampling universe) should be tested on a sample basis, using the sampling parameters recommended above in Section (A 95-percent confidence level with a precision level (materiality threshold) in the range of 2 to 5 percent). A minimum random sample in the range of 2 to 20 transactions is recommended for each high-risk account. This requires transactions to have been verified from the overhead schedule back to the general ledger and requires that the transactions be vouched from the general ledger to source documents. A minimum random sample in the range of 2 to 20 transactions is recommended for each high-risk account. This requires transactions to have been verified from the overhead schedule back to the general ledger and requires that the transactions be vouched from the general ledger to source documents.

Substantive Changes Chapter 10, continued: Note: State DOTs generally will deem an overhead audit insufficient due to an auditor’s failure to comply with the recommended minimum testing procedures as established in this chapter (unless deviations from the minimum testing requirements are adequately identified and justified in the auditor’s workpapers), failure to apply properly the FAR Subpart 31.2 cost principles, and/or failure of a CPA or other audit group to provide access to all audit workpapers used to determine the audited overhead rate. Note: State DOTs generally will deem an overhead audit insufficient due to an auditor’s failure to comply with the recommended minimum testing procedures as established in this chapter (unless deviations from the minimum testing requirements are adequately identified and justified in the auditor’s workpapers), failure to apply properly the FAR Subpart 31.2 cost principles, and/or failure of a CPA or other audit group to provide access to all audit workpapers used to determine the audited overhead rate.

Substantive Changes Chapter 10, continued: Note: The auditor should fully document the identification of high-risk accounts, based on a risk assessment and the application of professional judgment. If the auditor’s procedures vary significantly from those listed, the auditor must provide an adequate explanation to justify the deviation. If the State DOT conducting the review determines that the deviation is not properly justified, the State DOT may reject the overhead rate determined through the audit. Note: The auditor should fully document the identification of high-risk accounts, based on a risk assessment and the application of professional judgment. If the auditor’s procedures vary significantly from those listed, the auditor must provide an adequate explanation to justify the deviation. If the State DOT conducting the review determines that the deviation is not properly justified, the State DOT may reject the overhead rate determined through the audit.

Substantive Changes Chapter 11-Audit Reports and Minimum Disclosures Provides a Sample Audit Report on Overhead Schedule Provides a Sample Audit Report on Overhead Schedule Provides a Sample Report on Internal Controls and Compliance Provides a Sample Report on Internal Controls and Compliance Minimum Audit Report Disclosures Discussed Minimum Audit Report Disclosures Discussed

Substantive Changes Chapter 12-Cognizance and Oversight The underlying guidance concerning cognizant audits is contained in 23 CFR 172 and 23 U.S.C. 112 and supporting documents published by FHWA. Section 174 of the 2006 Transportation Appropriations Act and the implementation guidance issued by FHWA served to re- emphasize the importance of cognizant audits, while not actually changing the underlying regulations specific to issuance or acceptance of cognizant audits. The underlying guidance concerning cognizant audits is contained in 23 CFR 172 and 23 U.S.C. 112 and supporting documents published by FHWA. Section 174 of the 2006 Transportation Appropriations Act and the implementation guidance issued by FHWA served to re- emphasize the importance of cognizant audits, while not actually changing the underlying regulations specific to issuance or acceptance of cognizant audits.

Substantive Changes Chapter 12, continued: 23 U.S.C. 112 provides definitive guidance on indirect rates and the acceptance of cognizant audits. 23 U.S.C. 112 (b)(2), Contracting for engineering and design services, provides the following: 23 U.S.C. 112 provides definitive guidance on indirect rates and the acceptance of cognizant audits. 23 U.S.C. 112 (b)(2), Contracting for engineering and design services, provides the following:

Substantive Changes Chapter 12, continued: (A) General Rule – Subject to paragraph (3), each contract for program management, construction management, feasibility studies, preliminary engineering, design, engineering, surveying, mapping, or architectural related services with respect to a project... shall be awarded in the same manner as a contract for architectural and engineering services is negotiated under Chapter 11 of Title 40. (A) General Rule – Subject to paragraph (3), each contract for program management, construction management, feasibility studies, preliminary engineering, design, engineering, surveying, mapping, or architectural related services with respect to a project... shall be awarded in the same manner as a contract for architectural and engineering services is negotiated under Chapter 11 of Title 40. (B) Performance and audits – Any contract or subcontract awarded in accordance with subparagraph (A), whether funded in whole or in part with Federal-aid highway funds, shall be performed and audited in compliance with cost principles contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation of part 31 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations. (B) Performance and audits – Any contract or subcontract awarded in accordance with subparagraph (A), whether funded in whole or in part with Federal-aid highway funds, shall be performed and audited in compliance with cost principles contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation of part 31 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.

Substantive Changes Chapter 12, continued: (C) Indirect cost rates – Instead of performing its own audits, a recipient of funds under a contract or subcontract awarded in accordance with subparagraph (A) shall accept indirect cost rates established in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation for 1-year applicable accounting periods by a cognizant Federal or State government agency, if such rates are not currently under dispute. (C) Indirect cost rates – Instead of performing its own audits, a recipient of funds under a contract or subcontract awarded in accordance with subparagraph (A) shall accept indirect cost rates established in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation for 1-year applicable accounting periods by a cognizant Federal or State government agency, if such rates are not currently under dispute. (D) Application of rates – Once a firm’s indirect cost rates are accepted under this paragraph, the recipient of the funds shall apply such rates for the purposes of contract estimation, negotiation, administration, reporting and contract payment and shall not be limited by administrative or de facto ceilings of any kind. (D) Application of rates – Once a firm’s indirect cost rates are accepted under this paragraph, the recipient of the funds shall apply such rates for the purposes of contract estimation, negotiation, administration, reporting and contract payment and shall not be limited by administrative or de facto ceilings of any kind.

Substantive Changes Chapter 12, continued: ■ The AASHTO Audit Subcommittee and ACEC Transportation Committee worked together to develop the following guidance, which was later incorporated by FHWA into the Administration of Engineering and Design Related Services Contracts– Questions and Answers prepared by the FHWA and available on the Internet at a.cfm#r39.

Substantive Changes Chapter 12, continued: ■ What is a Cognizant Agency? ■ A cognizant agency can be any of the following: ■ A Federal agency, The Home State Transportation or Highway Department (the State where the consulting firm’s accounting and financial records are located), or The Home State Transportation or Highway Department (the State where the consulting firm’s accounting and financial records are located), or A Non-Home State Transportation or Highway Department to whom the Home State has transferred cognizance in writing for the particular indirect cost audit of a consulting firm. A Non-Home State Transportation or Highway Department to whom the Home State has transferred cognizance in writing for the particular indirect cost audit of a consulting firm.

Substantive Changes Chapter 12, continued: Revisions include: Revisions include: An example cognizant letter. An example cognizant letter. Questions and answers relating to cognizant and FAR compliant audits. Questions and answers relating to cognizant and FAR compliant audits. Includes Q&A relative to steps that may be included in dispute resolution processes. Includes Q&A relative to steps that may be included in dispute resolution processes.

Substantive Changes Appendix A-CPA Quality Control Review Program To provide a tool for use by all State DOTs to evaluate work performed by Certified Public Accountants to assure audited overhead reports comply with GAGAS, FAR and CFR expectations/requirements. This tool will also serve as a resource to A/E Firms and CPAs in procuring and conducting FAR compliant audit. To provide a tool for use by all State DOTs to evaluate work performed by Certified Public Accountants to assure audited overhead reports comply with GAGAS, FAR and CFR expectations/requirements. This tool will also serve as a resource to A/E Firms and CPAs in procuring and conducting FAR compliant audit.

Substantive Changes Appendix B-AASHTO Internal Control Questionnaire for Consulting Engineers To standardize the primary Internal Control Questions and provide consistency in the approach. To standardize the primary Internal Control Questions and provide consistency in the approach.

Substantive Changes SOIEA Annual Update of the Audit Guide To provide for consistency in the approach. To provide for consistency in the approach. Chair, Vice Chair & Secretary of SOIEA Chair, Vice Chair & Secretary of SOIEA One member from each AASHTO Association/Conference, who is a current Guide Task Force member for a 2 Yr. Term One member from each AASHTO Association/Conference, who is a current Guide Task Force member for a 2 Yr. Term One member from each AASHTO Association/Conference, who is not a current Guide Task Force member for a 4 Yr. Term. One member from each AASHTO Association/Conference, who is not a current Guide Task Force member for a 4 Yr. Term.

Next Steps The SOIEA approved adoption of the Uniform Audit and Accounting Guide update on October 2, The SOIEA approved adoption of the Uniform Audit and Accounting Guide update on October 2, votes in favor; 3 votes to not approve. 41 votes in favor; 3 votes to not approve. Balloting the SCOFA. Balloting the SCOFA Yes and 3 No Yes and 3 No Notice of the ballot sent to the AASHTO Board of Directors simultaneously to approve or disapprove SCOFA making the final decision. Notice of the ballot sent to the AASHTO Board of Directors simultaneously to approve or disapprove SCOFA making the final , No votes to not allow SCOFA to make the final , No votes to not allow SCOFA to make the final decision. AASHTO Board Meeting. AASHTO Board Meeting. Implementation Implementation