text:
Regulamin - Lifestyle Designers
 Regulamin Sprzedaży ustanowiony 13-11-2017 r. przez przedsiębiorcę PRIME LINE SPÓŁKA
 Z OGRANICZONĄ ODPOWIEDZIALNOŚCIĄ SPÓŁKA KOMANDYTOWA (dawniej PRIME LINE S.C. JACQUES BOUE, MARCIN PĘSZKO) ul. Poleczki 21, 02-822 Warszawa, NIP: 5213282290, Regon: 01567514, akta rejestrowe prowadzone przez Sąd Rejonowy dla M.St. Warszawy w Warszawie, XIII Wydział Gospodarczy KRS, nr KRS: 0000753596 określa zasady związane z dokonywaniem zakupów w ramach sklepu internetowego dostępnego pod adresem https://ldsklep.pl
 Regulamin Sprzedaży został podzielony na 3 funkcjonalne sekcje:
 Obsługa Sklepu udziela wyczerpujących informacji w języku polskim odnośnie cech towarów dostępnych w Sklepie oraz w kwestiach związanych z Regulaminem Sprzedaży. Obsługa jest dostępna telefonicznie pod numerem 223352285 w godzinach 9-17 w dni robocze, jak również za pośrednictwem poczty elektronicznej wysłanej na adres eshop@lifestyledesigners.pl, na którą obsługa odpowiada w terminie do 48 godzin.
 Sprzedawca: przedsiębiorca działający pod firmą PRIME LINE SPÓŁKA Z OGRANICZONĄ ODPOWIEDZIALNOŚCIĄ SPÓŁKA KOMANDYTOWA (dawniej PRIME LINE S.C. JACQUES BOUE, MARCIN PĘSZKO) i posługujący się numerem Regon: 015675143, numerem NIP: 5213282290, KRS: 0000753596; akta rejestrowe prowadzone przez Sąd Rejonowy dla M.St. Warszawy w Warszawie, XIII Wydział Gospodarczy KRS;
 Siedziba Sprzedawcy: ul. Poleczki 21, 02-822 Warszawa;
 Adres korespondencyjny Sprzedawcy: ul. Poleczki 21, 02-822 Warszawa;
 Sklep: serwis internetowy dostępny pod adresem https://ldsklep.pl za pośrednictwem którego, Sprzedawca świadczy usługi określone w Regulaminie świadczenia usług drogą elektroniczną w celu doprowadzenia do zawarcia Umowy sprzedaży;
 Zamówienie: zatwierdzenie dostępnego w Sklepie formularza zamówienia, w którym interaktywny przycisk lub link zatwierdzenia oznaczono słowami “zamówienie z obowiązkiem zapłaty” lub innym równoważnym jednoznacznym sformułowaniem;
 3. Oprócz wskazania rodzaju i liczby rzeczy oraz wyboru formy płatności i dostawy, Zamówienie musi zawierać następujące dane:
 6. Sprzedawca odbiera informacje o Zamówieniach składanych za pośrednictwem Sklepu w dni robocze, w godzinach 09-17. 7. Zawarcie Umowy sprzedaży następuje z chwilą potwierdzenia przez Sprzedawcę przyjęcia Zamówienia do realizacji, które jest wiążące dla Zamawiającego, jeśli nastąpiło niezwłocznie po otrzymaniu Zamówienia. Potwierdzenie przyjęcia Zamówienia do realizacji jest przesyłane przez Sprzedawcę z wykorzystaniem poczty elektronicznej na adres Zamawiającego podany przez niego w Zamówieniu.
 a) przy odbiorze osobistym u sprzedawcy
 2.Sprzedawca jest zobowiązany dostarczyć rzeczy niezwłocznie po zawarciu Umowy sprzedaży jednak nie później niż w ciągu 5 dni roboczych, chyba że strony Umowy sprzedaży dokonały innego indywidualnego uzgodnienia w tym zakresie.
 5.Sprzedawca udostępnia w Sklepie następujące formy dostawy:
 4. Sprzedawca rozpatrzy reklamację niezwłocznie, jednak nie później niż w terminie do 14 dni od jej otrzymania i o rezultacie rozpatrzenia reklamacji zawiadomi składającego reklamację pisemnie lub za pośrednictwem poczty elektronicznej na adres e-mail podany w reklamacji.
 6.Jeżeli Sprzedawca nie zaproponował, że sam odbierze rzecz od Konsumenta, może wstrzymać się ze zwrotem płatności otrzymanych od Konsumenta do chwili otrzymania rzeczy z powrotem lub dostarczenia przez Konsumenta dowodu jej odesłania, w zależności od tego, które zdarzenie nastąpi wcześniej.
 1.Administratorem danych osobowych, przetwarzanych w związku z podjętymi przez Zamawiającego czynnościami zmierzającymi do zawarcia Umowy sprzedaży oraz w związku z jej realizacją, jest Prime Line Spółka Z Ograniczoną Odpowiedzialnością Spółka Komandytowa z siedzibą ul. Poleczki 21, 02-822 Warszawa REGON: 015675143, NIP: 5213282290, KRS 0000753596 (zwana dalej Administratorem Danych Osobowych).
 2.Administrator Danych Osobowych wyznaczył inspektora ochrony danych (IOD). Jest to osoba, z którą może Zamawiający kontaktować się we wszystkich sprawach dotyczących przetwarzania danych osobowych oraz korzystania z praw związanych z przetwarzaniem danych. Z IOD można kontaktować listownie na adres Administratora Danych Osobowych lub poprzez adres e-mail: iod@primeline.pl.
 3.Podanie danych osobowych w formularzu zamówienia jest dobrowolne, jednak konieczne do świadczenia usług przez Sprzedawcę na rzecz Użytkownika za pośrednictwem Sklepu i w tym znaczeniu jest warunkiem zawarcia Umowy. Niepodanie danych skutkować będzie niemożnością założenia konta w sklepie internetowym i/lub dokonywania zakupów przez sklep internetowy lub skorzystania z usługi Newslettera.
 4.Każda osoba, która założy konto i wyrazi zgodę na otrzymywanie Newslettera (po wcześniejszym wyrażeniu zgody) otrzymuje stały rabat, na każde zakupy w wysokości 5%. Brak zgody na otrzymywanie Newslettera sprawi, że klient nie otrzymuje wspomnianego rabatu.
 5.Wszelkie dane osobowe, które Użytkownik wprowadzi do formularza rejestracyjnego, formularza zamówienia lub poda w korespondencji ze Sprzedawcą, są przetwarzane w sposób zgodny z wymogami określonymi w prawie polskim i europejskim, w tym w szczególności z Rozporządzeniem Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady UE 2016/ 679 z dnia 27 kwietnia 2016 r. w sprawie ochrony osób fizycznych w związku z przetwarzaniem danych osobowych i w sprawie swobodnego przepływu takich danych oraz uchylenia dyrektywy 95/46/WE (Dz. Urz. UE L 119 z 2016 r., str. 1-88) zwane dalej RODO oraz z ustawą z dnia 18 lipca 2002 roku o świadczeniu usług drogą elektroniczną (Dz. U. z 2019 roku poz. 123)
 6.Przetwarzanie danych osobowych odbywa się na zasadach określonych w przepisach RODO.
 7.Udostępnienie danych osobowych przez Zamawiającego ma charakter dobrowolny, ale niezbędny do złożenia Zamówienia i realizacji Umowy sprzedaży, a ich przetwarzania następuje:
 8.Dane osobowe Użytkownika są przetwarzane w celu:
 a) Dostarczenia Newslettera, w której to podstawą prawną przetwarzania danych jest art. 6 ust. 1 lit. a RODO, tj. po wyrażeniu zgody,
 b) Przesyłanie informacji handlowych dotyczących produktów i usług Sprzedawcy na adres email klienta, w której podstawą prawną przetwarzania danych jest art. 6 ust. 1 lit. a RODO tj. wyrażenie zgody,
 c) Realizacji Umowy łączącej Użytkownika z Administratorem Danych Osobowych, w której to podstawą prawną przetwarzania danych jest art. 6 ust. 1 lit. b RODO tj. nawiązanie, ukształtowanie treści, zmiana stosunku prawnego między Zamawiającym i Sprzedawcą, jak również ze względu na właściwość Umowy sprzedaży,
 d)Realizacji ciążących na Administratorze Danych Osobowych obowiązków, (w sytuacji dokonania zakupu w sklepie internetowym) gdzie podstawą prawną jest art. 6 ust. 1 lit. c RODO tj. wystawianie i przechowywanie faktur oraz dokumentów księgowych oraz udzielanie odpowiedzi na reklamacje w terminie i formie przewidzianej przepisami prawa,
 e)realizacji prawnie uzasadnionych interesów Administratora, w której to sytuacji podstawą prawną jest art. 6 ust. 1 lit. f RODO a są to następujące działania:
 •marketing produktów i usług własnych (marketing bezpośredni), w tym profilowanie;
 •działania analityczne (dobór usług do potrzeb Użytkownika, optymalizacja produktów Administratora Danych Osobowych w oparciu o uwagi i zainteresowania Użytkownika, optymalizacji procesów obsługi itp.);
 •w celach archiwalnych (dowodowych) będących realizacją prawnie uzasadnionego interesu Administratora Danych Osobowych do zabezpieczenia informacji na wypadek potrzeby wykazania prawidłowego działania,
 •ewentualne ustalenie, dochodzenie lub obrona przed roszczeniami,
 •badania satysfakcji Klientów i poprawa jakości oraz zadowolenia Klientów ze świadczonych przez Administratora Danych Osobowych usług i sprzedaży produktów.
 •obrona przed roszczeniami, cele archiwalne(dowodowe) polegające na zabezpieczeniu informacji na wypadek potrzeby wykazania prawidłowego działania
 W każdej chwili Użytkownikowi przysługuje prawo wycofania zgody w przypadkach o których mowa w pkt. 8 a i 8 b opisanych powyżej.
 W każdej chwili Użytkownikowi przysługuje prawo do wniesienia sprzeciwu wobec przetwarzania danych na podstawie prawnie uzasadnionego interesu, które wskazujemy w pkt. 8 e.
 Administrator Danych Osobowych zaprzestanie przetwarzania w tych celach danych Użytkownika, chyba że istnieją prawnie uzasadnione podstawy, których realizacja uniemożliwia zaprzestanie przetwarzania lub niezbędne będzie do ewentualnego ustalenia, dochodzenia lub obrony roszczeń.
 12. Zakres przetwarzanych danych obejmuje w szczególności następujące dane osobowe:
 a) nazwiska i imionab) numer telefonu
 13.Dane Użytkownika będą przetwarzane:
 a) do wycofania zgody,
 b) przez okres przewidziany przepisami prawa (np. podatkowego w przypadku zawarcia umowy), oraz w którym mogą ujawnić się roszczenia związane z Umową przez ustalony na podstawie przepisów szczególnych okres przedawnienia roszczeń oraz dodatkowy rok na wypadek roszczeń zgłoszonych w ostatniej chwili i problemów z doręczeniem, liczony od końca roku w którym umowa wygasła dla określenia jednej daty usunięcia danych dla umów kończących się w danym roku
 14.Dostęp do danych Zamawiającego będzie miał Administrator Danych Osobowych oraz upoważnieni pracownicy.
 15. Dane osobowe Zamawiającego zgromadzone przez Sprzedawcę mogą być udostępnione:
 a) Dostawcom usług zaopatrujących Administratora Danych Osobowych w rozwiązania techniczne oraz organizacyjne umożliwiające zarządzanie organizacją Administratora Danych Osobowych (w szczególności dostawcom usług teleinformatycznych),
 b) Dostawcom usług księgowych,
 c) Podmiotom prowadzącym działalność płatniczą (banki, instytucje płatnicze), w celu dokonania rozliczeń,
 d) Innym podmiotom świadczącym usługi na rzecz Administratora Danych Osobowych, w uzasadnionych przypadkach, gdy jest to niezbędne dla realizacji umowy (np. firmy świadczące usługi pocztowe, kurierskie) lub prawidłowego funkcjonowania Administratora Danych Osobowych,
 e) Dostawcom usług prawnych oraz wspierających Administratora Danych Osobowych w dochodzeniu należnych roszczeń,
 f) Organom państwa uprawnionym na podstawie odrębnych przepisów na potrzeby prowadzonych przez nie postępowań
 16. Zamawiający może dobrowolnie udostępnić swój adres e-mail w celu wykorzystania go przez Sprzedawcę na potrzeby działań marketingowych Sprzedawcy, polegających przede wszystkim na przesyłaniu Zamawiającym informacji handlowych dotyczących produktów i usług Sprzedawcy.
 17. Administrator Danych Osobowych zapewnia odpowiednie środki techniczne i organizacyjne zapewniające bezpieczeństwo danych osobowych udostępnionych przez Zamawiającego, w szczególności uniemożliwiające dostęp do nich osobom trzecim lub ich przetwarzanie z naruszeniem przepisów prawa, zapobiegające utracie danych, ich uszkodzeniu lub zniszczeniu.
 18.Administrator Danych Osobowych nie przekazuje danych Klientów do państw trzecich tj. poza terytorium Europejskiego Obszaru Gospodarczego (EOG).
 19. Zamawiającemu przysługuje prawo:
 a) Prawo dostępu, sprostowania, ograniczenia, usunięcia lub przenoszenia – osoba, której dane dotyczą, ma prawo żądania od Administratora Danych Osobowych dostępu do swoich danych osobowych, ich sprostowania, usunięcia („prawo do bycia zapomnianym”) lub ograniczenia przetwarzania oraz ma prawo do wniesienia sprzeciwu wobec przetwarzania, a także ma prawo do przenoszenia swoich danych. Szczegółowe warunki wykonywania wskazanych wyżej praw wskazane są w art. 15-21 RODO.
 b) Prawo do cofnięcia zgody w dowolnym momencie – osoba, której dane przetwarzane są przez Administratora Danych Osobowych na podstawie wyrażonej zgody (na podstawie art. 6 ust. 1 lit. a) lub art. 9 ust. 2 lit. a) RODO), to ma ona prawo do cofnięcia zgody w dowolnym momencie bez wpływu na zgodność z prawem przetwarzania, którego dokonano na podstawie zgody przed jej cofnięciem.
 c) Prawo wniesienia skargi do organu nadzorczego – osoba, której dane przetwarzane są przez Administratora, ma prawo wniesienia skargi do organu nadzorczego w sposób i trybie określonym w przepisach Rozporządzenia RODO oraz prawa polskiego, w szczególności ustawy o ochronie danych osobowych. Organem nadzorczym w Polsce jest Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Danych Osobowych.
 d) Prawo do sprzeciwu – osoba, której dane dotyczą, ma prawo w dowolnym momencie wnieść sprzeciw – z przyczyn związanych z jej szczególną sytuacją – wobec przetwarzania dotyczących jej danych osobowych opartego na art. 6 ust. 1 lit. e) (interes lub zadania publiczne) lub f) (prawnie uzasadniony interes Administratora Danych Osobowych), w tym profilowania na podstawie tych przepisów. Administratorowi Danych Osobowych w takim przypadku nie wolno już przetwarzać tych danych osobowych, chyba że wykaże on istnienie ważnych prawnie uzasadnionych podstaw do przetwarzania, nadrzędnych wobec interesów, praw i wolności osoby, której dane dotyczą, lub podstaw do ustalenia, dochodzenia lub obrony roszczeń.
 e) Prawo do sprzeciwu dot. marketingu bezpośredniego – jeżeli dane osobowe są przetwarzane na potrzeby marketingu bezpośredniego, osoba, której dane dotyczą, ma prawo w dowolnym momencie wnieść sprzeciw wobec przetwarzania dotyczących jej danych osobowych na potrzeby takiego marketingu, w tym profilowania, w zakresie, w jakim przetwarzanie jest związane z takim marketingiem bezpośrednim.
 f) W celu realizacji uprawnień, o których mowa w niniejszym punkcie polityki prywatności można kontaktować się z Administratorem Danych Osobowych lub naszym Inspektorem Ochrony Danych poprzez przesłanie stosownej wiadomości pisemnie lub pocztą elektroniczną na adres Administratora Danych Osobowych lub Inspektora Ochrony Danych wskazany na wstępie polityki prywatności.
 20. W przypadku, gdy podanie przez Zamawiającego danych osobowych następuje w celu zawarcia umowy ze Sklepem internetowym, podanie przez Panią/Pana danych osobowych jest warunkiem zawarcia tej Umowy. Podanie danych osobowych w tej sytuacji jest dobrowolne, jednak konsekwencją niepodania tych danych będzie brak możliwości zawarcia umowy ze Sklepem internetowym.
 Brak zgody na otrzymywanie Newslettera sprawi, że klient nie otrzymuje rabatu w wysokości 5%.
 1.W rozsądnym czasie po zawarciu Umowy sprzedaży, ale najpóźniej w chwili dostarczenia rzeczy, Sprzedawca przekazuje Konsumentowi potwierdzenie zawarcia tej umowy na trwałym nośniku, którym to nośnikiem w szczególności może być wiadomość elektroniczna przesłana na adres e-mail Konsumenta podany przez niego w Zamówieniu.
 1.Na podstawie art. 8 ust. 1 pkt 1 ustawy z dnia 18 lipca 2002 r. o świadczeniu usług drogą elektroniczną (Dz.U. z 2002, Nr 144, poz. 1204 z późn. zm.) usługodawca PRIME LINE SPÓŁKA Z OGRANICZONĄ ODPOWIEDZIALNOŚCIĄ SPÓŁKA KOMANDYTOWA (dawniej PRIME LINE S.C. JACQUES BOUE, MARCIN PĘSZKO) ustala niniejszym regulamin świadczenia usług drogą elektroniczną dostępnych w ramach Sklepu (zwany dalej “Regulaminem”), który określa w szczególności:
 1.Na potrzeby niniejszego regulaminu zawarte poniżej terminy będą miały następujące znaczenie:
 a) Usługodawca – przedsiębiorca działający pod firmą PRIME LINE SPÓŁKA Z OGRANICZONĄ ODPOWIEDZIALNOŚCIĄ SPÓŁKA KOMANDYTOWA (dawniej PRIME LINE S.C. JACQUES BOUE, MARCIN PĘSZKO) i posługujący się numerem Regon: 015675143, numerem NIP: 5213282290 oraz numerem KRS: 0000753596 z siedzibą ul. Poleczki 21, 02-822 Warszawa i adresem korespondencyjnym ul. Poleczki 21, 02-822 Warszawa;
 c) Serwis – system stron www udostępniony pod adresem internetowym https://ldsklep.pl stanowiących zbiór dokumentów statycznych i dynamicznych, zawierających pliki graficzne, skrypty oraz inne elementy zbioru połączone wzajemnymi relacjami;
 § 3 Rodzaje i zakres usług świadczonych drogą elektroniczną:
 § 4 Warunki świadczenia usług drogą elektroniczną:
 1.Wymagania techniczne korzystania z serwisu:
 2.Zakazane jest dostarczanie przez Usługobiorcę treści o charakterze bezprawnym, a także podejmowanie działań mogących wywołać zakłócenia lub uszkodzenia serwisu.
 § 5 Warunki zawierania i rozwiązywania umów o świadczenie usług drogą elektroniczną:
 § 6 Tryb postępowania reklamacyjnego w zakresie świadczenia usług drogą elektroniczną:
 § 7 Ochrona praw własności intelektualnej:
 § 8 Postanowienia końcowe:
 Właścicielem materialnych praw autorskich do wzorca niniejszego Regulaminu Sprzedaży jest Safe Buy Sp. z o.o. Sp.k., która udzieliła sklepowi uczestniczącemu w programie eCommerce Fair Play niewyłącznego i niezbywalnego prawa do wykorzystywania tego Regulaminu Sprzedaży do celów związanych z własną działalnością handlową w internecie.
 Adresat: PRIME LINE SPÓŁKA Z OGRANICZONĄ ODPOWIEDZIALNOŚCIĄ SPÓŁKA KOMANDYTOWA
 (dawniej PRIME LINE S.C. JACQUES BOUE, MARCIN PĘSZKO)
 e-mail: eshop@lifestyledesigners.pl
 telefon: 223352285


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b'AUDIT OF THE BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE \n\n AWARD TO THE CLARKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA \n\n SHERIFF\'S DEPARTMENT \n\n\n\n u.s. Department of Justice\n Office of the Inspector General\n Audit Division\n\n Audit Report GR-30-13-001 \n\n March 2013 \n\n\x0cThis Page Left Intentionally Blank.\n\x0c AUDIT OF THE BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE\n\n AWARD TO THE CLARKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA\n\n SHERIFF\xe2\x80\x99S DEPARTMENT\n\n\n EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\n The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG)\ncompleted an audit of grant number 2010-DD-BX-0690, covering grant\nactivity from October 1, 2010 through October 11, 2012, in the amount of\n$1,000,000 awarded to the Clarke County, Virginia Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department\n(Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department). The Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department is the fiscal agent for the\nNorthwest Virginia Regional Gang Task Force (Task Force), which is\ncomprised of a detective from Clarke County, Page County, Shenandoah\nCounty, Frederick County, Winchester City, and Warren County. Created in\n2004, the Task Force seeks to counter gang-related violence and property\ncrimes in Northwest Virginia.\n\n We conducted this audit to determine whether costs claimed under the\ngrant were allowable, reasonable, and in accordance with applicable laws,\nregulations, guidelines, and the terms and conditions of the award.\n\n Our audit found that the transactions were, in general, properly\nauthorized, classified, supported, and charged to the grant. However, the\nSheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department could improve its internal controls to ensure\ncompliance with DOJ grant requirements. During the audit, we found the\nSheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department did not follow their own procedures for sole source\nprocurements, and did not have sufficient support for payroll and fringe\nbenefits allocated to the grant by its subgrantees. Consequently, we have\nquestioned unsupported subgrantee payroll and fringe benefits allocations\ntotaling $30,940. 1\n\n Our report contains 2 recommendations. We discussed the results of\nour audit with Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department officials and have included their\ncomments in the report.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n Questioned costs are expenditures that do not comply with legal, regulatory or\ncontractual requirements, or are not supported by adequate documentation at the time of\nthe audit, or are unnecessary or unreasonable. Questioned costs may be remedied by\noffset, waiver, recovery of funds, or the provision of supporting documentation.\n\x0c Table of Contents\n\n Page\n\nINTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1\n\n Audit Approach ..................................................................................1\n\nFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................ 3\n\n Reporting ..........................................................................................3\n\n Federal Financial Reports..................................................................4\n\n Progress Reports .............................................................................4\n\n Drawdowns .......................................................................................5\n\n Budget Management and Control .........................................................6\n\n Grant Expenditures ............................................................................6\n\n Personnel Costs...............................................................................7\n\n Other Direct Costs ...........................................................................8\n\n Contract Management ...................................................................... 10\n\n Recommendations............................................................................ 10\n\nSCHEDULE OF DOLLAR-RELATED FINDINGS ................................... 11\n\nAPPENDIX I - OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ............... 12\n\nAPPENDIX II \xe2\x80\x93 CLARKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SHERIFF\xe2\x80\x99S OFFICE\n\n RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT AUDIT REPORT............................ 124\n\nAPPENDIX III \xe2\x80\x93 OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS RESPONSE TO THE\n\n DRAFT AUDIT REPORT.......................................................... 120\n\nAPPENDIX IV \xe2\x80\x93 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ANALYSIS\n\n AND SUMMARY OF ACTIONS NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE \n\n REPORT .................................................................................. 12\n\n\x0c INTRODUCTION\n\n The Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division, has completed an\naudit of grant 2010-DD-BX-0690, covering grant activity from October 1,\n2010 through October 11, 2012, in the amount of $1,000,000 awarded to\nthe Clarke County, Virginia Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department (Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department) from\nthe Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). The Sherriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department is the\nfiscal agent for the Northwest Virginia Regional Gang Task Force (Task\nForce), which is comprised of a detective from Clarke County, Page County,\nShenandoah County, Frederick County, Winchester City, and Warren County.\n\n Created in 2004, the Task Force seeks to counter gang-related\nviolence and property crimes in Northwest Virginia. The Task Force\xe2\x80\x99s\nobjectives are to 1) utilize resources to identify, apprehend, and prosecute\ngang offenders; 2) work closely with federal agencies to identify, investigate,\nand prosecute gang members responsible for violent crimes; 3) gather and\ndisseminate intelligence information through crime reporting databases;\n4) continue to conduct presentations developed for schools, hospitals, law\nenforcement, and civil organizations to promote gang awareness; and\n5) continue to enroll Task Force investigators in advanced gang-enforcement\nseminars and specialized training.\n\nAudit Approach\n\n We conducted this audit to determine whether costs claimed under the\ngrant are allowable, reasonable, and in accordance with applicable laws,\nregulations, guidelines, and terms and conditions of the award. To\naccomplish this objective, we tested compliance with what we considered the\nmost important conditions of the grant. Unless otherwise stated in the\nreport, we used the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) Financial Guide\n(Financial Guide) to assess the Sherriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department\xe2\x80\x99s performance and\ncompliance with grant requirements. 2\n\n\n\n\n 2\n The Financial Guide serves as a reference manual that provides guidance to award\nrecipients on the fiduciary responsibility to safeguard award funds and to ensure funds are\nused appropriately. OJP requires award recipients to abide by the requirements in the\nFinancial Guide.\n\x0c Specifically, we tested what we believed to be critical award\nrequirements necessary to meet the objectives of the audit, including:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Reporting to determine if the required federal financial reports and\n progress reports were submitted timely and accurately reflect grant\n activity;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Drawdowns to determine whether grant drawdowns were adequately\n supported and if the grantee was managing receipts in accordance\n with federal requirements;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Budget Management and Control to ensure that the Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s\n\n Department appropriately tracked costs to approved budget\n\n categories;\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Grant Expenditures to determine the accuracy and allowability of\n costs charged to the grant; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Contract Management to ensure compliance with overall financial\n management requirements for procurements.\n\n The award did not include program income, matching funds, or indirect\ncosts. The results of our analysis are discussed in detail in the Findings and\nRecommendations section of the report. Appendix I contains additional\ninformation on our objective, scope, and methodology.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n\n COMPLIANCE WITH ESSENTIAL AWARD REQUIREMENTS\n\n Our audit found that the transactions were, in general, properly\n authorized, classified, supported, and charged to the grant.\n However, the Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department could improve its internal\n controls to ensure compliance with DOJ grant requirements.\n During the audit, we found the Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department did not\n follow their own procedures for sole source procurements and\n did not have sufficient support for payroll and fringe benefits\n allocated to the grant by its subgrantees. Consequently, we\n have questioned $30,940 of unsupported subgrantee payroll and\n fringe benefits allocations.\n\nReporting\n\n The special conditions of the grant require that the Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s\nDepartment comply with administrative and financial requirements outlined\nin the Financial Guide and the requirements of the Office of Management and\nBudget (OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-\nProfit Organizations (OMB Circular A-133). 3 The Financial Guide requires\nthat grantees submit both financial and program progress reports to inform\nawarding agencies on the status of each award. Federal Financial Reports\n(FFRs) should detail the actual expenditures incurred for each quarterly\nreporting period, while progress reports should be submitted semiannually\nand describe the performance activities and achievements of the project\nsupported by each award.\n\n Because accurate and timely FFRs and progress reports are necessary\nto ensure that DOJ awarding agencies can effectively monitor award\nactivities and expenditures, we reviewed the Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department\xe2\x80\x99s reports\nfor grant number 2010-DD-BX-0690. As detailed in the following sections,\nthe Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department did not submit all required FFRs and progress\nreports in a timely manner. Additionally, while we were able to verify that\nprogress reports accurately reflected actual program accomplishments, FFRs\ndid not accurately report grant expenditure activity due to small adjustments\nmade after the FFRs were submitted.\n\n\n 3\n OMB Circular A-133 requires non-federal entities that expend at least $500,000 a\nyear in federal awards to have a single audit conducted of its financial statements. The\npurpose of the single audit is to determine whether the financial statements and schedule of\nexpenditures of federal awards are presented fairly in all material respects and in conformity\nwith generally accepted accounting principles.\n\n\n 3\n\x0cFederal Financial Reports\n\n DOJ awarding agencies monitor the financial performance of each\ngrant via FFRs. According to the Financial Guide, FFRs should be submitted\nwithin 30 days of the end of each quarterly reporting period. Even when\nthere have been no outlays of grant funds, a report containing zeroes must\nbe submitted. Awarding agencies may withhold funds or future awards if\nreports are submitted late, or not at all.\n\n To verify the timeliness of the FFRs, we tested the last four reports\nsubmitted for the audited period, which included grant activity through the\ngrantee\xe2\x80\x99s accrual general ledger as of June 30, 2012. We compared the\nsubmission date of each report to the date each report was due, and found\nthat the FFR for the period October 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011 was\nsubmitted one day late. Consequently, the grantor withheld the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s\nfunds. However, the grantee was able to rectify the situation within a day.\n\n The Financial Guide indicates that a grantee\xe2\x80\x99s accounting system for\nreporting must support all amounts reported on the FFRs. To verify the\naccuracy of the FFRs, we discussed the FFR processes with the responsible\nClarke County accountant and the Task Force\xe2\x80\x99s analyst, compared the\namounts reported on the last four FFRs to expenditures recorded in the\ngrant\xe2\x80\x99s accounting records through June 30, 2012, and reviewed the\ngrantee\xe2\x80\x99s adjustments. Based on our testing, we have concluded that the\nFFRs do not reconcile to the financial records. However, the small\ndifferences noted are related to subsequent adjustments the grantee has\naccounted for reasonably.\n\nProgress Reports\n\n While FFRs report grant financial activity, progress reports describe the\nproject status and accomplishments of the DOJ grant supported program or\nproject. Progress reports should also describe the status of the project and\ncompare actual accomplishments to anticipated grant objectives. According\nto the Financial Guide, grantees are required to submit progress reports\nevery six months during the performance period of the award. Progress\nreports are due 30 days after the end of each semi-annual reporting period,\nJune 30 and December 31. DOJ awarding agencies may withhold grant\nfunds if grantees fail to submit accurate progress reports on time.\n\n To assess whether the Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department submitted progress\nreports on time, we reviewed the last four progress reports and compared\nthe submission dates to the due date for each progress report. Two of the\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0cfour progress reports tested were not submitted in a timely manner. 4 Since,\nthe last two progress reports were submitted on time and the late progress\nreports were remedied quickly, we consider the late progress reports to be\nan isolated occurrence.\n\n To determine if the Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department\xe2\x80\x99s progress reports contained\nachievements related to its program goals and objectives, we analyzed and\ncompared the progress reports for the periods July 2011 through December\n2011 and January 2012 through June 2012 to the program objectives.\nBased on our review, the Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department was reporting achievements\nrelated to its program goals and objectives to BJA.\n\n To assess the accuracy of the progress reports, we selected a sample\nof seven reported achievements for the periods July 2011 through December\n2011 and January 2012 through June 2012 and compared them to source\ndocumentation. From our review, we determined the progress reports\naccurately reflected program goals and achievements as set forth in the\ngrant documentation.\n\nDrawdowns\n\n To obtain DOJ award money, award recipients must electronically\nrequest grant funds via drawdowns. The Financial Guide states that award\nrecipients should only request federal award funds when they incur or\nanticipate project costs. Therefore, recipients should time their requests for\naward funds to ensure they will have only the minimum federal cash on\nhand required to pay actual or anticipated costs within 10 days.\n\n According to the Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department\xe2\x80\x99s grant management personnel,\ndrawdown requests are based on reimbursements of expenses for salaries,\nfringe benefits, contractor costs, travel, equipment, and other costs. 5 The\nSheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department confirmed that their policy is to request a drawdown\neach quarter for grantee and subgrantee expenses. To ensure that the\nSheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department requested funds properly and kept minimum cash on\nhand, we analyzed its drawdowns to date and compared the overall amount\nto grant\xe2\x80\x99s general ledger. Overall, we found that the amounts drawn down\ndid not exceed the expenditures in the accounting records.\n\n\n 4\n Progress report for the period October 2010 through December 2010 was\nsubmitted 2 days late and progress report January 2011 through June 2011 was submitted\n17 days late. The late reports caused a withholding of funds.\n 5\n Other costs include lease payments for a task force office building,\ntelecommunication services, and conference registration.\n\n\n 5\n\x0cBudget Management and Control\n\n Grantees should expend funds according to the budget approved by\nthe awarding agency and included in the final award. Approved award\nbudgets document how much the recipient is authorized to spend in high-\nlevel budget categories, such as personnel, supplies, and contractors. The\nFinancial Guide also states that award recipients may request a modification\nto approved award budgets to reallocate amounts between various budget\ncategories within the same award. No prior approval is required if the\nreallocations between budget categories do not exceed 10 percent of the\ntotal award amount. We compared the actual amounts spent in each budget\ncategory to the budgeted amounts in the same categories. For award 2010\xc2\xad\nDD-BX-0690, the Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department adhered to the Financial Guide\nrequirements.\n\nGrant Expenditures\n\n According to 2 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 225 Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian\nTribal Governments, costs are allowable if they are reasonable, consistently\napplied, adequately documented, comply with policies and procedures, and\nconform to any limitations or exclusions specified in applicable criteria. As of\nJune 30, 2012, the Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department\xe2\x80\x99s general ledger reported $397,378\nin project costs associated with grant 2010-DD-BX-0690. We tested\n$187,679 (47 percent) in expenses charged to the grant to ensure they were\nallowable, and identified $30,940 in questioned costs. 6 Exhibit 1 displays by\ntype of sampled cost, the total value of the expenditures in each category,\nand the amount of questioned costs our testing identified.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n Questioned costs are expenditures that do not comply with legal, regulatory or\ncontractual requirements, or are not supported by adequate documentation at the time of\nthe audit, or are unnecessary or unreasonable. Questioned costs may be remedied by\noffset, waiver, recovery of funds, or the provision of supporting documentation.\n\n\n 6\n\x0c Exhibit 1: Summary of Review of\n\n Grant Expenditures\n\n\n Total General Total Costs Questioned\n Type of Cost Ledger Costs ($) Tested ($) Costs ($)\nPersonnel Costs 62,336 7,241 0\nFringe Costs 23,541 2,630 0\nSubgrantee Costs 276,668 152,191 30,940\nEquipment 14,430 6,142 0\nOther Direct Costs 20,403 19,475 0\n TOTAL $ 397,378 $187,679 $ 30,940\nSource: Grant\xe2\x80\x99s general ledger and OIG analysis of total questioned costs.\n\nPersonnel Costs\n\n The personnel costs of the grant include the salary and fringe benefits\nof the one task force detective representing the grant\xe2\x80\x99s fiscal agent, the\nSheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department of Clarke County, Virginia. The salary and fringe\nbenefits for the other five detectives participating in the task force are billed\nto the fiscal agent by their respective counties and included in the account\nentitled Subgrantee Costs.\n\n We interviewed the payroll accountant responsible for the grant\xe2\x80\x99s\npayroll. The payroll for the Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department, and the grant, is\nprocessed through the Clarke County accounting department. County\npayroll is processed once a month and each month\xe2\x80\x99s payment is made on\nthe last day of the month. The assistant deputy sheriff provides the Clarke\nCounty payroll accountant with the detective\xe2\x80\x99s monthly timesheet and a list\nof any changes to the detective\xe2\x80\x99s regular pay, such as overtime. Since each\nof the detectives is budgeted as 100 percent dedicated to the task force, all\nof the Clarke County detective\xe2\x80\x99s salary and fringe benefits is automatically\nallocated to the grant.\n\n Salaries\n\n To determine if the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s allocation of labor was accurate, we\nselected two pay periods (March 2011 and June 2012) to test. We\nrecalculated the Clarke County detective\xe2\x80\x99s salary based on the county\xe2\x80\x99s list\nof general government salaries and compared our salary calculation to the\nsalary recorded in the county\xe2\x80\x99s payroll register and general ledger. Based on\nthe tests performed, we determined that the Clarke County detective\xe2\x80\x99s\nsalary is properly and accurately charged to the grant.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0c Fringe Benefits\n\n When Clarke County employees work on grant projects, Clarke County\nincurs costs associated with providing its employees fringe benefits such as\npayroll taxes, health insurance, and pension plan contributions. To allocate\nthe cost of fringe benefits to the DOJ grant, OJP approved an amount the\ngrantee can charge the grant for the award period. We reviewed the fringe\nbenefits amount allowed in the approved budget and calculated a monthly\namount allowed. We compared the monthly amount allowed to the amounts\ncharged for the months tested, and determined that a reasonable amount of\nfringe benefits costs were charged to the grant for the Clarke County\ndetective.\n\nOther Direct Costs\n\n We selected a judgmental sample of 15 transactions from award 2010\xc2\xad\nDD-BX-0690 totaling $177,808 to determine if the charges were allowable\nand allocable to the award. As shown in Exhibit 2, we questioned $30,940\nof subgrantee costs.\n\n Exhibit 2: Summary of Questioned Subgrantee Costs\n\n General Ledger\n Account Amount Questioned\n Description Date ($) Amount ($) Note\n Salary and Fringe\n 07/31/2012 14,412 14,412 Unsupported allocation\n Benefits\n Salary and Fringe\n 02/15/2012 10,859 10,859 Unsupported allocation\n Benefits\n Salary and Fringe\n 02/15/2012 5,669 5,669 Unsupported allocation\n Benefits\n TOTAL $30,940 $30,940\n Source: OIG analysis of the grant\xe2\x80\x99s general ledger and supporting documentation.\n\n Unsupported Allocation of Salaries and Fringe Benefits\n\n The Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department of Clarke County is the fiscal agent for the\nTask Force grant, and there are five detectives from five neighboring\ncounties participating in the Task Force. Each of the neighboring counties\nsubmits a reimbursement request to the Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department for the salary\nand fringe benefits costs of each county\xe2\x80\x99s participating detective. These\nparticipating counties are considered subgrantees.\n\n As noted in the grant\xe2\x80\x99s OJP approved budget narrative, the\nparticipating Task Force detectives are 100 percent dedicated to the Task\n\n\n 8\n\x0cForce, and all of their salary and fringe benefits costs should be allocated to\nthe grant. During our transaction testing, we noted four transactions in\nwhich the participating detective fulfilled responsibilities in addition to his\nTask Force responsibilities. For instance, with one of the transactions, the\ndetective spent a portion of his time working for his respective county\xe2\x80\x99s\nSWAT Team.\n\n According to the Financial Guide, grant recipients who work on\nmultiple programs or cost activities must reasonably allocate their labor\ncosts to each activity based on time and effort reports, more commonly\nreferred to as timesheets. These timesheets must reflect an after-the-fact\ndistribution of the actual activity of the employee, account for the total\nactivity for which the employee is compensated, be prepared to coincide\nwith one or more pay periods, and be signed by the employee and approved\nby a supervisor with firsthand knowledge of the work performed.\n\n In reviewing the supporting documentation for the transactions in\nExhibit 2, we noted that none of these transactions was supported by\nadequate timesheets showing time spent working on multiple projects during\nthe pay periods tested. Instead, the subgrantees provided supporting\ntimecards showing total hours worked each day of the pay periods.\nConsequently, we could not determine the allocation rationale for the three\ntransactions in Exhibit 2, and we question the total $30,940 of salaries and\nfringe benefits costs. We recommend OJP remedy $30,940 in unsupported\nallocations of salaries and fringe benefits costs.\n\n Monitoring Subgrantees\n\n In testing the sample of 15 transactions, we noted that the grantee\ndoes not monitor or review the requests for reimbursement from the\nsubgrantees. Instead, the grantee accumulates the supporting documents\naccompanying the reimbursement request and approves the amount to pay\nthe subgrantee. There is no determination whether the costs paid are\naccurately calculated, complete, or in conjunction with the approved grant\nbudget.\n\n We discussed with the grantee their requirements to monitor\nsubgrantees\xe2\x80\x99 reimbursement requests to ensure the requests are accurately\ncalculated, complete, and in conjunction with the approved grant budget. In\nresponse to our discussions, the grantee implemented a new process that\neach reimbursement request has a coversheet that requires a reviewer\xe2\x80\x99s\nsignature attesting that the reimbursement was reviewed prior to payment.\nSince the grantee has addressed our concerns, we make no further\nrecommendation.\n\n\n 9\n\x0cContract Management\n\n According to grant officials, the Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department follows the Clarke\nCounty Department of Joint Administrative Services Procurement Policies\nand Procedures Revised November 1, 2010 in accounting for grant\ntransactions.\n\n During our testing of a sample of grant transactions, we noted the\npurchase of a budget approved forensic extraction device, known as a\nCelleBrite machine. In discussion with the grantee, we determined that this\nmachine was purchased under sole source authority. According to the\nClarke County purchasing policies, an account manager who has determined\nthat only one source exists for a specific good or service with an estimated\ndollar value of greater than $800 must forward a signed statement to that\neffect, supported by factual data, to a purchasing agent with the purchase\nrequisition. After reviewing the factual information, the purchasing agent\nwill approve or disapprove the purchase as a sole source procurement.\n\n We were provided with the supporting documentation for the CelleBrite\npurchase; however, we were not provided with documentation that the\naccount manager determined that only one source existed for the forensic\nextraction device. Therefore, we recommend that OJP ensure the grantee\nfollow its procurement policies by documenting the rationale for sole source\nprocurements.\n\n\nRecommendations\n\nWe recommend that OJP:\n\n1. Remedy the $30,940 in unsupported allocations of salaries and fringe\n benefits costs.\n\n2. Ensure the grantee follows its procurement policies and include\n documentation of factual data that supports an account manager\xe2\x80\x99s\n determination that a sole source procurement is justified.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0c SCHEDULE OF DOLLAR-RELATED FINDINGS\n\n\n\n\nQUESTIONED COSTS: 7 AMOUNT PAGE\n ($)\nUnsupported Subgrantee Costs\n\nSalaries and Fringe Benefits Costs 30,940 8\n\n Total Unsupported Costs $30,940\n\nTotal Questioned Costs $30,940\n\n\n\n\n 7\n Questioned costs are expenditures that do not comply with legal, regulatory or\ncontractual requirements, or are not supported by adequate documentation at the time of\nthe audit, or are unnecessary or unreasonable. Questioned costs may be remedied by\noffset, waiver, recovery of funds, or the provision of supporting documentation.\n\n\n 11\n\x0c APPENDIX I\n\n OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY\n\n The purpose of this audit was to determine whether reimbursements\nclaimed for costs under the grant reviewed were allowable, supported, and\nin accordance with applicable laws, regulations, guidelines, and terms and\nconditions of the grant. The objective of our audit was to review\nperformance in the following areas: (1) federal financial reports and\nprogress reports, (2) drawdowns, (3) budget management and control,\n(4) expenditures, and (5) contract management.\n\n We conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted\ngovernment auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and\nperform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a\nreasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit\nobjectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable\nbasis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.\n\n Our audit concentrated on grant number 2010-DD-BX-0690 in the\namount of $1,000,000 to the Clarke County, Virginia Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department\n(Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department) awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The\nSherriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department uses these funds to support the Northwest Virginia\nRegional Gang Task Force (Task Force). Created in 2004, the Task Force\nseeks to counter gang-related violence and property crimes in the Northwest\nVirginia region.\n\n We tested compliance with what we considered to be the most\nimportant conditions of the award. Unless otherwise stated in our report,\nthe criteria we audit against are contained in the OJP Financial Guide and the\naward documents.\n\n In conducting our audit, we performed sample testing in the following\nareas:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Drawdowns. We analyzed the Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department\xe2\x80\x99s overall\n drawdowns of $396,611 for the DOJ award from October 1, 2010\n through October 11, 2012. The overall drawdowns did not exceed the\n total expenditures per the grant\xe2\x80\x99s general ledger.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2\t Payroll. We interviewed the Clarke County payroll accountant\n regarding timekeeping and the charging of personnel costs to the\n grant. To determine whether the grant\xe2\x80\x99s labor costs were supported\n and allowed, we judgmentally selected two pay periods (March 2011\n and June 2012) to test. We recalculated salary figures based on the\n county\xe2\x80\x99s list of general government salaries and compared the salary\n recalculations with Clarke County\xe2\x80\x99s payroll register and the grant\xe2\x80\x99s\n general ledger. We reviewed the fringe benefits amount allowed in the\n approved budget and compared the monthly amount allowed to the\n amounts charged for the months tested and determined that a\n reasonable amount of fringe benefits costs were charged to the grant.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Transactions. To test the grant\xe2\x80\x99s transactions for authorizations,\n approvals, and sufficient supporting documentation, we judgmentally\n selected 15 non-payroll transactions totaling $177,808. We analyzed\n the transactions to determine if the transactions were properly\n authorized, classified, recorded, supported, and charged to the grant.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Contract Management. We interviewed grantee officials regarding\n the analysis, negotiation, and available documentation maintained in\n connection with grant procurements. Based on our analysis of an\n equipment purchase, we determined whether the grantee was\n following procurement policies for sole source procurements.\n\n In addition, we reviewed the timeliness and accuracy of financial\nstatus and progress reports and reviewed the internal controls of the\nfinancial management system.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0c APPENDIX II\n\nCLARKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SHERIFF\xe2\x80\x99S OFFICE RESPONSE\n TO THE DRAFT REPORT\n\n\n February 19, 2013\n\n\n Mr. Troy M. Meyer\n Regional Audit Manager\n Washington Regional Audit Office\n Office of the Inspector General\n U. S. Department of Justice\n 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 3400\n Arlington, VA 22209\n\n\n Dear Mr. Meyer:\n\n I have reviewed your draft audit report, dated February 5, 2013. I do not concur\n with the recommendations enumerated on page 10 of the draft report.\n\n Recommendation 1 requires a remedy for unsupported allocation of salaries and\n fringe benefits. The recommended remedy has a cost of $30,940.\n\n Clarke County, the fiscal agent for this grant, manages the payments for several\n members of our regional gang task force. The particular allocations questioned in\n Recommendation 1 involve payments to a sub-grantee, Shenandoah County.\n During the audit process, Clarke County learned that we were perhaps not\n utilizing best practices in tracking time sheets for the reimbursement of sub-\n grantee expenditures. This process has been refined, and documentation is now\n in-line with these practices.\n\n The sub-grantee, while now complying with the new reporting procedures,\n contends that the allocation in question is appropriate, necessary, and fulfills the\n requirements stated in the grant. I have attached a letter from the sub-grantee, who\n retains all of the necessary documentation in addition to Clarke County. This\n letter is labeled "Attachment 1 ".\n\n Recommendation 2 requires Clarke County to follow their procurement policies\n when making purchases. I have attached documentation, "Attachment 2", from\n Clarke County that indicates the purchase of the Cellebrite equipment met all\n requirements. I understand that there may have been a lack of documentation on\n the part of the account manager and this will be remedied.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0cTroy M. Meyer\nFebruary 19, 2013\nPage 2 of 2\n\n\nThis grant has funds remaining, and the operation that is supported by the funding continues.\nIf the final determination from the grants manager is that sub-grantee Shenandoah County is\nrequired to remedy the stated amount in Recommendation 1, provisions will be made to\naccomplish this. There are no additional purchases for goods required by this grant. As such,\nsole source purchases will no longer be an issue.\n\nThe staff members from the Office of Inspector General who conducted this audit were\nprofessional, friendly, and represented the Department of Justice positively. Frank Roller,\nMichael Pannone, and Carrie Fleming were available for questions, and explained the entire\nprocess. We learned from the process, and are better prepared to manage this grant to its\nconclusion.\n\nI look forward to hearing from you. If I can be of further service, please don\xe2\x80\x99t hesitate to call.\n\n\n\n\nAttachments: 1) February 15, 2013 Letter from Sheriff Timothy Carter, Shenandoah\n County\n 2) February 15, 2013 Memorandum and Attachment from Mike Legge,\n Clarke County Purchasing Manager\n\n\ncc: David Ash, County Administrator, Clarke County, Virginia\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0c Attachment 1\n\n\n\n\n\n 15 February 2013\n\nThe Honorable,\n\nSheriff Anthony Roper\n\nP.O. Box49\nBerryville, VA 22611\n\nRe: Gang Grant Audit- 201 0-DD-BX-0690\n\nDear Sheriff Roper,\n\n This Office has a full time detective/investigator assigned to the Northwest Virginia Gang\nTask Force. His time is dedicated 100% to accomplish the objectives of the NWVGTF. My\nOffice has implemented a significant effort, including an immediate policy enhancement to\ncomply with OJP Financial Guidelines for timesheets. This will enable my Office and the\nGrantee to provide evidence of a prospective basis to easily track gang investigative work and\nrelated tasks, as well as track current and future grant funds.\n Furthermore, our enhancements include compliance with OJP Financial Guidelines in\nthat all cost activities are reflected on timesheets that show after-the-fact distribution of actual\nactivity of the investigator, account for the total activity for which we compensate the\ninvestigator, coincide with the applicable pay period(s), and signed by the investigator and his\napproved supervisor with firsthand knowledge of the work performed.\n Please let me know if you require any additional information regarding this matter.\nThank you.\n\n\n Sincerely,\n\n\n\n Timothy C. Carter\n Sheriff\n Shenandoah County\n\n\n\n\n An Accredited Law Enforcement Agency\n\n 16\n\x0c Attachment 2-1\n\n County of Clarke\n Joint Administrative Services- Purchasing Department\n\n\n\nDATE: February 15, 2013\n\nTO: Brenda Bennett\n\nFROM: Mike Legge,\n Purchasing Manager\n Clarke County Department of Joint Administrative Services\n\nRE: Cellebrite Purchase Order #07163\n\nCOMMENTS:\n\nAt the recommendation of an audit prepared by the USDOJ, you asked that I review a purchase\nthat the Clarke County Sheriff\'s Office made from Cellebrite USA Corporation on September 12,\n2011.\n\nIn section 4.2 of the County\'s Procurement Policies and Procedures, the following rule\napplies to the purchase of goods totaling over $800, but less than $25,000.00:\n\n The Account Manager shall prepare a Purchase Requisition that includes a clear\n and thorough description of the goods and a date when the goods are needed.\n The Account Manager and an Executive must sign the requisition before\n forwarding it to the Purchasing Office. The Account A1anager should also\n suggest sources where the goods/services can be procured.\n\n The Purchasing Qffice, upon receipt of a signed Purchase Requisition, will solicit\n a minimum a three (3) competitive written or telephonic bids. The administrative\n lead-time may take up to fifteen (15) days. It is recommended that the Account\n Manager attempt to obtain three quotes and complete a Bid/Quote Tabulation\n Form to expedite the process. The Account Manager is also encouraged to\n provide the Purchasing Qffiice with a Purchase Order number from a previous\n order if the item/service has been ordered in the past."\n\nThe audit stated that the grantee reported that this purchase was done so under sole source\nauthority. Although the County of Clarke received notification from the vendor that they were\nthe sole source and 1iotification from the Department of Homeland Security that they were\npurchasing a Universal Forensic Extraction Device through a sole source purchase order, the\nCounty decided not to declare this a sole source purchase and went a step farther and attempted\nto solicit additional quotes in an effort to encourage competition and to provide other vendors\nwith an opportunity to provide a quote or a comparable product.\n\n129 Ransburg Lane Telephone: [540] 955-5185\nBerryville, VA 22611 Fax: [540] 955-0456\n 17\n\x0c Attachment 2-2\n\nThis purchase was not declared a sole source procurement because an attempt to seek\ncompetition and receive other quotes was made. The County\'s policies regarding this purchase\nwere handled correctly because an effort was made by Chief Deputy Mike McWilliams to solicit\nadditional quotes from First Choice Group and GRRASP Inc.\n\nI am attaching a letter signed by Chief Deputy Mike McWilliams that documents his effort to\nsolicit other quotes.\n\nIf you have any questions, please let me know.\n\n\n\n\nClarke County Purchasing Department Page 2 of 2\n 18\n\x0c Attachment 2-3\n\n\n\n\n\n9/7/11\n\nTo whom it may concern:\n\nIn the process of attempting to obtain quotes for a CelleBrite UFED, I contacted FirstChoice\nGroup and GRRASP Inc and both companies are unable to provide quotes.\n\n\n\n\nMF McWilliams\nChief Deputy\nClarke County Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Office\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0c APPENDIX III\n\n\n OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT\n AUDIT REPORT\n\n\n U.S. Department of Justice\n\n Office of Justice Programs\n\n Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management\n\n\n\n Washington, D.C. 20531\n\n\n\n\nMarch 7, 2013\n\n\nMEMORANDUM TO: Troy M. Meyer\n Regional Audit Manager\n Washington Regional Audit Office\n Office of the Inspector General\n\n /s/\nFROM: Maureen A. Henneberg\n Director\n\nSUBJECT: Response to the Draft Audit Report, Audit of the Office of Justice\n Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance Award to the Clarke\n County, Virginia Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department\n\nThis memorandum is in response to your correspondence, dated February 5, 2013, transmitting\nthe subject draft audit report for the Clarke County, Virginia Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department (Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s\nDepartment). We consider the subject report resolved and request written acceptance of this\naction from your office.\n\nThe draft audit report contains two recommendations and $30,940 in questioned costs. The\nfollowing is the Office of Justice Programs\xe2\x80\x99 (OJP) analysis of the draft audit report\nrecommendations. For ease of review, the recommendations are restated in bold and are\nfollowed by our response.\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0c1.\t We recommend that OJP remedy the $30,940 in unsupported allocations of salaries\n and fringe benefits costs.\n\n We agree with the recommendation. We will coordinate with the Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department to\n remedy the $30,940 in unsupported allocations of salaries and fringe benefits costs.\n\n2.\t We recommend that OJP ensure that the grantee follow their procurement policies\n and include documentation of factual data that supports an account manager\xe2\x80\x99s\n determination that a sole source procurement is justified.\n\n We agree with the recommendation. We will coordinate with the Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department to\n obtain a copy of procedures implemented to ensure that procurement policies are adhered\n to, and include documentation of factual data that supports an account manager\xe2\x80\x99s\n determination that sole source procurement is justified.\n\nWe appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the draft audit report. If you have any\nquestions or require additional information, please contact Jeffery A. Haley, Deputy Director,\nAudit and Review Division, on (202) 616-2936.\n\ncc:\t Jeffery A. Haley\n Deputy Director, Audit and Review Division\n Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management\n\n Tracey Trautman\n\n Deputy Director for Programs\n\n Bureau of Justice Assistance\n\n\n Amanda LoCicero\n\n Budget Analyst\n\n Bureau of Justice Assistance\n\n\n Naydine Fulton-Jones\n\n Division Chief\n\n Bureau of Justice Assistance\n\n\n Lesley Walker\n\n Grant Program Specialist\n\n Bureau of Justice Assistance\n\n\n Richard P. Theis\n\n Assistant Director, Audit Liaison Group\n\n Internal Review and Evaluation Office\n\n Justice Management Division\n\n\n OJP Executive Secretariat\n\n Control Number 20130116\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0c APPENDIX IV\n\n OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF ACTIONS\n\n NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE REPORT\n\n\n The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG)\nprovided a draft of this audit report to the Clarke County, Virginia Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s\nOffice (Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Office) and the Office of Justice Programs (OJP). The\nresponses are incorporated respectively as Appendices II and III of this final\nreport. The following provides the OIG analysis of the response and\nsummary of actions necessary to close the report.\n\n 1.\t Resolved. OJP concurs with our recommendation that requires the\n grantee to remedy the $30,940 in unsupported allocations of salaries\n and fringe benefits costs. OJP stated in its response that it will\n coordinate with the Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department to remedy the $30,940,\n which includes one reimbursement to Warren County for $10,859 and\n two reimbursements to Shenandoah County for $20,081.\n\n The Clarke County Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department stated that the questioned\n allocations involved payments to a subgrantee, Shenandoah County;\n however, the questioned allocations involve both Shenandoah and\n Warren Counties. Shenandoah contends that the allocations in\n question are appropriate, necessary, and fulfill the requirements of the\n grant. Additionally, Shenandoah County has made alterations to its\n timekeeping procedures to ensure that timesheets allow for\n investigators to appropriately allocate and record their time based on\n actual time spent on each project or grant.\n\n This recommendation can be closed when we have evidence that OJP\n has remedied the $30,940 of unsupported salaries and fringe benefit\n allocations.\n\n 2.\t Resolved. OJP concurs with our recommendation that requires the\n grantee to follow Clarke County procurement policies and include\n documentation of factual data that supports an account manager\xe2\x80\x99s\n determination that a sole source procurement is justified. OJP states\n in its response that it will coordinate with the Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department to\n obtain a copy of procedures implemented to ensure that procurement\n policies are adhered to, and include documentation of factual data that\n\n\n 22\n\x0csupports an account manager\xe2\x80\x99s determination that sole source\nprocurement is justified.\n\nThis recommendation can be closed when OJP provides evidence that\nthe Sheriff\xe2\x80\x99s Department has followed Clarke County sole source\nprocurement policies to include documentation of factual data that\nsupports an account manager\xe2\x80\x99s determination that a sole source\nprocurement is justified.\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0c'


type: wikipedia

text:
Ο Γουόλτερ Γκρίμσο (Walter Grimshaw 12 Μαρτίου 1832-27 Δεκεμβρίου 1890) ήταν ένας συνθέτης σκακιστικών προβλημάτων του 19ου αιώνα. Το 1854, στο Λονδίνο, νίκησε στον πρώτο διαγωνισμό λύσης σκακιστικών προβλημάτων. Είναι γνωστός επειδή έδωσε το όνομά του στο πασίγνωστο στους προβληματιστές θέμα Γκρίμσο.
 Σκακιστικά προβλήματα
 Ματ σε 5 (1850)
 Δεξιά βλέπουμε ένα πρόβλημά του, ένα ορθόδοξο πολυκίνητο σε 5, (τα λευκά παίζουν πρώτα και πρέπει να κάνουν ματ στα μαύρα μέσα σε πέντε κινήσεις, όσο καλά κι αν αμυνθούν τα μαύρα), που πρωτοδημοσιεύτηκε στο Illustrated London News το 1850. Το κλειδί είναι (σε αλγεβρική γραφή):
 1.Αγ8
 που απειλεί 2.Βγ5# ή Βδ2#. Για να αμυνθούν, τα μαύρα παίζουν
 1...Α:γ8
 τα λευκά παίζουν
 2.Βζ6
 απειλώντας 3...γ4#, και τώρα εμφανίζεται η παρεμβολή Γκρίμσο: τα μαύρα μπορούν να αποκόψουν την βασίλισσα από το δ6, παίζοντας 2...Αε6 (ή και 2...Ιε6), αλλά έτσι παρεμβάλλονται στον πύργο που φρουρεί το ε5, επιτρέποντας το 3.Βε5#, οπότε τα μαύρα, για να εξουδετερώσουν την εξέλιξη αυτή, παίζουν
 2...Πε6
 αλλά αυτό παρεμβάλλεται στον αξιωματικό που φρουρεί το ζ5, και η συνέχεια είναι
 3.Βδ4+ Ρ:δ4
 4.Ιζ5+ Ρδ5
 5.γ4#
 Ματ σε 3 (1852–1854)
 Το πρόβλημα που βλέπουμε δεξιά είναι ένα από τα πιο γνωστά τριάρια του συνθέτη Γκρίμσο, που το υπέβαλε στον διαγωνισμό σύνθεσης που οργάνωσε το Chess Players Chronicle, την τριετία 1852–1854. Το κλειδί είναι αρκετά παράδοξο, αφού θυσιάζει ένα δυνατό λευκό κομμάτι (σε αλγεβρική γραφή):
 1.Πζ1
 Αυτό έχει δυο απειλές, 2.Ιζ3 (και μετά ο λευκός πύργος θα κάνει ματ από το δ4 ή το ε5), και 2.ζ3+ (και μετά ο λευκός ίππος θα κάνει ματ από το ζ5 ή το η2). Η προφανής άμυνα των μαύρων,
 1...ε:ζ1=Β
 2.Ιζ3 Ρ:ζ3
 3.Πδ2#
 δεν είναι ικανοποιητική, αλλά ούτε αν μετά το κλειδί τα μαύρα αμυνθούν με
 1...ζ3
 που δίνει μεν το τετράγωνο διαφυγής ζ4 για τον μαύρο βασιλιά, αλλά τα λευκά επιστρέφουν τον πύργο εκεί που ήταν αρχικά (switchback) για να εκμεταλλευτούν την ανοικτή "η"-στήλη
 2.Πη1 οτιδήποτε
 3.Πη4#
 Παραπομπές
 Εξωτερικοί σύνδεσμοι
 Σκακιστική παρτίδα του Γκρίμσο, το 1886
 Βρετανοί σκακιστές
 Άγγλοι