text: b' Issue Date\n September 10, 2010\n \xef\x80\xa0\n Audit Report Number\n 2010-KC-1007\n\n\n\n\nTO: Cliff Taffet, Director, Office of Affordable Housing, DGH\n\n //signed//\nFROM: Ronald J. Hosking, Regional Inspector General for Audit, 7AGA\n\nSUBJECT: The Missouri Housing Development Commission Did Not Always Obtain\n Required Documents and Properly Report on the Tax Credit Assistance\n Program Funded Under the Recovery Act\n\n\n HIGHLIGHTS\n\n What We Audited and Why\n\n We audited the Missouri Housing Development Commission (Commission)\n because it received and disbursed the largest amount of American Recovery and\n Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) funds in Region VII. The Commission\n received nearly $39 million in Tax Credit Assistance Program (TCAP) funds and\n had disbursed more than $14 million of these funds as of May 3, 2010. Our\n objectives were to determine whether the Commission obtained wage reports and\n lobbying certifications required by Federal law and accurately reported job\n creation to Recovery.gov.\n\n What We Found\n\n\n The Commission did not obtain and review all Davis-Bacon Act reports and\n lobbying certifications from contractors working on TCAP-funded projects.\n Therefore, it could not determine whether its contractors complied with Federal\n wage rate requirements and lobbying prohibitions. Additionally, it did not\n accurately report job creation data to Recovery.gov. As a result, the number of\n\x0c jobs created for the fourth quarter of 2009 was overreported by 0.16 and was\n underreported for first and second quarters of 2010 by 12.6 and 1.31, respectively.\n\nWhat We Recommend\n\n\n We recommend that the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development\n (HUD) require the Commission to design and implement a system for identifying\n contractors working during the month on TCAP-funded projects and tracking the\n receipt of required documentation. Additionally, the Commission should obtain\n and review the required lobbying certifications and Davis-Bacon Act files that are\n missing.\n\n Further, we recommend that HUD require the Commission to restate its fourth\n quarter 2009 and first quarter 2010 job creation figures in its administrative files.\n Also, the Commission should restate its second quarter jobs creation figures to\n Recovery.gov during the continuous correction period and establish an adequate\n system for reviewing the job creation reports to ensure proper reporting in future\n quarters.\n\n For each recommendation without a management decision, please respond and\n provide status reports in accordance with HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-3.\n Please furnish us copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the\n audit.\n\nAuditee\xe2\x80\x99s Response\n\n\n We provided the Commission with our draft report on August 19, 2010. We\n received its written response on September 3, 2010. The Commission generally\n agreed with our findings.\n\n The complete text of the auditee\xe2\x80\x99s response, along with our evaluation of that\n response, can be found in appendix A of this report.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nBackground and Objectives 4\n\nResults of Audit\n Finding 1: The Commission Did Not Obtain All Wage Reports and Lobbying 5\n Certifications Required by Federal Law\n\n Finding 2: The Commission Inaccurately Reported Job Creation to 7\n Recovery.gov\n\n\nScope and Methodology 10\n\nInternal Controls 11\n\nAppendixes\n A. Auditee Comments and OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Evaluation 12\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES\n\nThe Missouri Housing Development Commission (Commission) was established by the 75th\nMissouri General Assembly in 1969 and is the housing finance agency for the State of Missouri.\nThe Commission operates under a board of commissioners including the governor, lieutenant\ngovernor, attorney general, state treasurer, and six persons appointed by the governor with the\nadvice and consent of the Senate. The Commission has invested almost $4 billion to construct,\nrenovate, and preserve affordable housing.\n\nThe Commission functions as a bank, providing financing directly to developers of affordable\nrental properties and funding for home loans to qualified, first-time buyers. It also administers\nthe Federal and Missouri Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) programs and the Federal\nHOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds as well as other programs related to its\nhousing finance activities.\n\nOn February 17, 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act\nof 2009 (Recovery Act) into law. The purpose of the Recovery Act was to jump-start the\nNation\xe2\x80\x99s economy, with a primary focus on creating and saving jobs in the near term and\ninvesting in infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits. The Recovery Act\nappropriated $2.25 billion under the HOME program heading for a Tax Credit Assistance\nProgram (TCAP) grant to provide funds for capital investments in LIHTC projects. The U.S.\nDepartment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded TCAP grants to the 52 State\nhousing credit agencies. On June 26, 2009, HUD awarded the Commission nearly $39 million in\nTCAP funds.\n\nAlthough these funds were appropriated under the HOME heading, TCAP funds are not subject\nto any HOME requirements other than the environmental review and can only be used in LIHTC\nprojects, which are administered through the U.S. Department of the Treasury. HUD awarded\nTCAP grants to facilitate development of projects that received or will receive LIHTC awards\nbetween October 1, 2006, and September 30, 2009. Since a major purpose of these funds is to\nimmediately create new jobs or save jobs at risk of being lost due to the current economic crisis,\nthe Recovery Act establishes deadlines for the commitment and expenditure of grant funds and\nrequires State housing credit agencies to give priority to projects that will be completed by\nFebruary 16, 2012.\n\nAs of May 26, 2010, the Commission had awarded all of its TCAP funds to 24 LIHTC projects\nand disbursed more than $17 million of these funds. The 24 LIHTC projects consist of 12 family\nand 12 elderly projects, which will create or rehabilitate 1,474 housing units. According to\nRecovery.gov, the TCAP funds had created 31.11 jobs as of May 31, 2010.\n\nOur objectives were to determine whether the Commission obtained wage reports and lobbying\ncertifications required by Federal law and accurately reported job creation to Recovery.gov.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0c RESULTS OF AUDIT\n\nFinding 1: The Commission Did Not Obtain All Wage Reports and\nLobbying Certifications Required by Federal Law\nThe Commission did not obtain all wage reports and lobbying certifications required by Federal\nlaw. This deficiency occurred because the Commission did not have an adequate system in place\nto identify which contractors worked on TCAP-funded projects each month. As a result, it could\nnot determine whether its contractors complied with Federal wage rate requirements and\nlobbying prohibitions.\n\n\n The Commission Did Not Meet\n Federal Law Requirements\n\n\n The Commission did not obtain all Davis-Bacon Act wage reports and lobbying\n certifications required by Federal law. Specifically, for the three projects reviewed,\n the Commission did not obtain Davis-Bacon Act files for 5 contractors and lobbying\n certifications for 5 contractors.\n\n Section 1606 of the Recovery Act states that the Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage\n requirement applies to Recovery Act-appropriated construction projects.\n Requirements at 40 U.S.C. (United States Code) Section 3145 and 29 CFR (Code of\n Federal Regulations) Part 3 state that contractors and subcontractors on covered\n projects must pay all laborers and mechanics weekly and submit weekly certified\n payroll records to the contracting or administering agency.\n\n Further, in accordance with 24 CFR Part 87, TCAP funds may not be used for\n lobbying activities. To comply with this requirement, all TCAP contractors and\n subcontractors that receive more than $100,000 in TCAP funds must submit a\n certification for contracts, grants, loans, and cooperative agreements.\n\nThe Commission Relied on the\nContractors To Supply All\nRequired Documentation\n\n The Commission did not have an adequate system in place to identify which\n contractors worked on TCAP-funded projects each month. It relied on the general\n contractors of each project to supply all required documentation for the\n contractors. While the Commission did obtain a list of contractors working on the\n projects, the list used for Davis-Bacon monitoring did not indicate which\n contractors worked each month. Therefore, the Commission could not determine\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0c what documentation was required and what documentation was missing on a\n monthly basis.\n\nThe Commission Could Not\nDetermine Compliance\n\n As a result of the conditions described above, the Commission could not\n determine whether its contractors complied with Federal wage rate requirements\n and lobbying prohibitions. It needed to review these documents to ensure that the\n contractors paid the proper wage rates and were not lobbying.\n\nRecommendations\n\n We recommend that the Director of Office of Affordable Housing require the\n Commission to\n\n 1A. Design and implement an adequate system for identifying contractors\n working on TCAP-funded projects during the month and tracking the receipt\n of required documentation.\n\n 1B. Obtain and review the required lobbying and Davis-Bacon Act reports that\n are missing.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0cFinding 2: The Commission Inaccurately Reported Job Creation to\nRecovery.gov\nThe Commission did not accurately calculate jobs or report them to Recovery.gov. This\ndeficiency occurred because the Commission did not establish an adequate system for reviewing\nthe job creation reports supplied by the contractors and was unaware of changes to the job\ncalculation methodology. As a result, the public did not have access to accurate information on\nthe number of jobs created with the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s TCAP funds.\n\n\n Job Creation Calculations Did\n Not Follow HUD and OMB\n Guidance\n\n The Commission did not accurately calculate or report jobs to Recovery.gov. It\n incorrectly reported for the fourth quarter of 2009, the first quarter of 2010, and the\n second quarter of 2010.\n\n Jobs reported to Corrected Difference\n Recovery.gov calculation\n Quarter 4 2009 4.82 4.66 .16\n Quarter 1 2010 31.11 43.71 (12.6)\n Quarter 2 2010 80.22 81.53 (1.31)\n \xc2\xa0\n The Commission used an outdated job calculator to calculate the number of jobs\n created in the fourth quarter of 2009. According to Office of Management and\n Budget (OMB) Memorandum 10-08, the job calculation methodology had been\n updated as of December 18, 2009. The new job calculation methodology was\n simplified from prior guidance and included dividing the total number of hours\n worked and funded by the Recovery Act within the reporting quarter by quarterly\n hours in a full-time schedule. The result of the calculation is the full-time-equivalent\n jobs reported to Recovery.gov.\n\n Additionally, the Commission underreported jobs created for the first quarter of\n 2010 by 12.6. It continued to use the outdated job calculator, and it used the wrong\n percentage of TCAP funds to calculate the number of jobs. According to OMB\n Memorandum 10-08, if not all jobs were funded by the Recovery Act, an adjustment\n is made to the jobs number to match the appropriate percentage of Recovery Act\n funding. The Commission used the wrong percentage of TCAP funds for three\n projects during the first quarter of 2010. Further, a project\xe2\x80\x99s job creation report was\n submitted using a 28-hour full-time work week, although the project\xe2\x80\x99s contractors\n worked a 40-hour full-time work week.\n\n The Commission underreported jobs created during the second quarter of 2010 by\n 1.31. It used the wrong percentage of TCAP funds for one project. In addition, the\n job calculators for five of the projects did not accurately calculate and report jobs\n\n\n 7\n\x0c created. The job calculators did not show any jobs created for some of the\n contractors with hours worked in the quarter and did not accurately calculate the\n number of jobs for the quarter.\n\n\nThe Commission Relied on the\nContractor\xe2\x80\x99s Report of Jobs\nCreated and Was Unaware of\nChanges to Calculation Method\n\n The Commission did not establish an adequate system for reviewing the reports\n supplied by its contractors. It relied on the contractors\xe2\x80\x99 reports of jobs created and\n did not have a system in place to review the reports for accuracy and consistency,\n resulting in several undetected errors. The Commission compiled the total number\n of jobs reported by each general contractor without reviewing the various line items\n on the report. If it had, it would have been able to catch the errors, such as the 28-\n hour work week and the various blank lines where the totals had not carried forward\n from one line to the next.\n\n In addition, although OMB had updated the job calculation methodology, effective\n December 2009, the Commission did not become aware of the changes until April\n 2010 when it received an e-mail from HUD containing updated job count guidance.\n The Commission stated that it checked for updates to TCAP guidance but was not\n aware of all available sources of information.\n\nRecovery Act Goals Were Not\nAchieved\n\n As a result of the conditions described above, the public did not have access to\n accurate information on the number of jobs created with the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s TCAP\n funds. One of the overriding goals of the Recovery Act\xe2\x80\x94fostering unprecedented\n levels of accountability and transparency in government spending\xe2\x80\x94was not\n achieved. It was expected that the transparency requirements of the Recovery\n Act, specifically the requirement to publish both spending and recipient\n performance reports including jobs created, would create accountability among\n grantees.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cRecommendations\n\n\n We recommend that the Director of Office of Affordable Housing require the\n Commission to\n\n 2A. Maintain within its administrative records comprehensive information on\n corrections to job creation figures for the fourth quarter of 2009 and the\n first quarter of 2010.\n\n 2B. Restate the job creation figures for the second quarter of 2010 to\n FederalReporting.gov.\n\n 2C. Establish and implement an adequate system for reviewing the job\n creation reports received from contractors.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0c SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\n\nTo accomplish our objectives, we reviewed the selected project\xe2\x80\x99s written agreements, the Federal\nlaw requirements and supporting documentation, the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s policies and procedures, the\nresults of prior certified public accountant reviews, the reporting to Recovery.gov, and pertinent\nlaws and regulations. We also interviewed Commission and HUD staff.\n\nOn June 26, 2009, HUD awarded the Commission nearly $39 million in TCAP funds. Based on\nthe spreadsheet obtained from the Commission as of May 26, 2010, it had awarded all of its\nTCAP funds to 24 LIHTC projects and disbursed more than $17 million of these funds. To\ncompile our Federal reporting review sample of three projects, we selected (1) the project that\nhad drawn down all of its TCAP funds, (2) the project that had not drawn down any TCAP\nfunds, and (3) the project that was awarded and drew down the largest amount of TCAP funds.\nWe reviewed these projects\xe2\x80\x99 files for evidence of Federal reporting requirements including\nlobbying and Davis-Bacon Act documentation.\n\nWe also reviewed all of the projects to verify job creation figures that the Commission reported\nto Recovery.gov. To accomplish this task, we obtained and reviewed the job calculators for each\nof the projects for the fourth quarter of 2009 and the first and second quarters of 2010. We\ndetermined that the Commission used an outdated job calculator for the fourth quarter of 2009\nand the first quarter of 2010; therefore, we reran the job creation figures on an updated\ncalculator. We also reran the job creation figures for the second quarter of 2010 because the\ncalculators supplied by the contractors inaccurately calculated and reported jobs created.\n\nAlso, during our review of job creation, we recalculated the percentage of TCAP funds used in\nthe job creation calculation. Our review of the calculators and calculations determined that the\nCommission used the wrong percentage of TCAP funds and the incorrect number of full-time\nhours in a work week for several TCAP projects.\n\nOur audit period generally covered May 2009 through April 2010. We expanded the period as\nnecessary to address issues identified during our review. We performed audit work from May\nthrough August 2010 at the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s office at 3435 Broadway, Kansas City, MO.\n\nWe conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.\nThose standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate\nevidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit\nobjectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings\nand conclusions based on our audit objectives.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0c INTERNAL CONTROLS\n\nInternal control is a process adapted by those charged with governance and management,\ndesigned to provide reasonable assurance about the achievement of the organization\xe2\x80\x99s mission,\ngoals, and objectives with regard to\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Effectiveness and efficiency of operations,\n \xef\x82\xb7 Reliability of financial reporting, and\n \xef\x82\xb7 Compliance with applicable laws and regulations.\n\nInternal controls comprise the plans, policies, methods, and procedures used to meet the\norganization\xe2\x80\x99s mission, goals, and objectives. Internal controls include the processes and\nprocedures for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations as well as the\nsystems for measuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance.\n\n\n\n Relevant Internal Controls\n We determined that the following internal controls were relevant to our audit\n objectives:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Controls to ensure compliance with HUD and Recovery Act requirements.\n \xef\x82\xb7 Controls over the reporting of TCAP grant information to Recovery.gov.\n\n We assessed the relevant controls identified above.\n\n A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does\n not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their\n assigned functions, the reasonable opportunity to prevent, detect, or correct (1)\n impairments to effectiveness or efficiency of operations, (2) misstatements in\n financial or performance information, or (3) violations of laws and regulations on a\n timely basis.\n\n Significant Deficiencies\n\n\n Based on our review, we believe that the following items are significant deficiencies:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 The Commission did not have an adequate system in place to identify which\n contractors worked on TCAP-funded projects each month (finding1).\n \xef\x82\xb7 The Commission did not have an adequate system in place to review the job\n creation reports supplied by the contractors (finding 2).\xc2\xa0 \xc2\xa0\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0c APPENDIXES\n\nAppendix A\n\n AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG\xe2\x80\x99S EVALUATION\n\n\nRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n September\xc2\xa03,\xc2\xa02010\xc2\xa0\n\n\n\n\n \xc2\xa0\n Mr.\xc2\xa0Ronald\xc2\xa0J.\xc2\xa0Hosking\xc2\xa0\n Regional\xc2\xa0Inspector\xc2\xa0General\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0Audit\xc2\xa0\n U.S.\xc2\xa0Department\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0Housing\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0Urban\xc2\xa0Development\xc2\xa0\n Office\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0Inspector\xc2\xa0General\xc2\xa0\n Region\xc2\xa0VII\xc2\xa0Office\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0Audit\xc2\xa0\n Gateway\xc2\xa0Tower\xc2\xa0II\xc2\xa0\xe2\x80\x93\xc2\xa05th\xc2\xa0Floor\xc2\xa0\n 400\xc2\xa0State\xc2\xa0Avenue\xc2\xa0\n Kansas\xc2\xa0City,\xc2\xa0KS\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa066101\xe2\x80\x902406\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n Re:\xc2\xa0 Discussion\xc2\xa0Draft\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0HUD\xc2\xa0OIG\xc2\xa0Audit\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n Missouri\xc2\xa0Housing\xc2\xa0Development\xc2\xa0Commission\xe2\x80\x99s\xc2\xa0\n Tax\xc2\xa0Credit\xc2\xa0Assistance\xc2\xa0Program\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n Dear\xc2\xa0Mr.\xc2\xa0Hosking:\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0 Thank\xc2\xa0you\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0giving\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Missouri\xc2\xa0Housing\xc2\xa0Development\xc2\xa0Commission\xc2\xa0(the\xc2\xa0\n \xe2\x80\x9cCommission\xe2\x80\x9d)\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0opportunity\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0respond\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0draft\xc2\xa0audit\xc2\xa0report\xc2\xa0prepared\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0\n Office\xc2\xa0 of\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 Inspector\xc2\xa0 General\xc2\xa0 (the\xc2\xa0 \xe2\x80\x9cOIG\xe2\x80\x9d)\xc2\xa0 of\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 U.S.\xc2\xa0 Department\xc2\xa0 of\xc2\xa0 Housing\xc2\xa0 and\xc2\xa0\n Urban\xc2\xa0 Development\xc2\xa0 (\xe2\x80\x9cHUD\xe2\x80\x9d)\xc2\xa0 with\xc2\xa0 respect\xc2\xa0 to\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 audit\xc2\xa0 recently\xc2\xa0 performed\xc2\xa0 on\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0\n Commission\xe2\x80\x99s\xc2\xa0Tax\xc2\xa0Credit\xc2\xa0Assistance\xc2\xa0Program\xc2\xa0(\xe2\x80\x9cTCAP\xe2\x80\x9d).\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0 Among\xc2\xa0its\xc2\xa0other\xc2\xa0functions,\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Commission\xc2\xa0administers\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Federal\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0\n Missouri\xc2\xa0Low\xc2\xa0Income\xc2\xa0Housing\xc2\xa0Tax\xc2\xa0Credit\xc2\xa0(LIHTC)\xc2\xa0programs\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0State\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0Missouri.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n The\xc2\xa0American\xc2\xa0Recovery\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0Reinvestment\xc2\xa0Act\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa02009\xc2\xa0(the\xc2\xa0\xe2\x80\x9cRecovery\xc2\xa0Act\xe2\x80\x9d)\xc2\xa0included\xc2\xa0\n an\xc2\xa0 appropriation\xc2\xa0 in\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 amount\xc2\xa0 of\xc2\xa0 $2.25\xc2\xa0 billion\xc2\xa0 for\xc2\xa0 TCAP\xc2\xa0 funds\xc2\xa0 to\xc2\xa0 be\xc2\xa0 awarded\xc2\xa0 by\xc2\xa0\n HUD\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa052\xc2\xa0State\xc2\xa0housing\xc2\xa0credit\xc2\xa0agencies,\xc2\xa0including\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Commission,\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0be\xc2\xa0used\xc2\xa0\n for\xc2\xa0capital\xc2\xa0investments\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0LIHTC\xc2\xa0projects.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0The\xc2\xa0Commission\xc2\xa0awarded\xc2\xa0its\xc2\xa0allocation\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0\n TCAP\xc2\xa0 funds\xc2\xa0 to\xc2\xa0 24\xc2\xa0 LIHTC\xc2\xa0 developments,\xc2\xa0 consisting\xc2\xa0 of\xc2\xa0 12\xc2\xa0 family\xc2\xa0 and\xc2\xa0 12\xc2\xa0 elderly\xc2\xa0\n projects,\xc2\xa0 which\xc2\xa0 involve\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 creation\xc2\xa0 or\xc2\xa0 rehabilitation\xc2\xa0 of\xc2\xa0 1,474\xc2\xa0 housing\xc2\xa0 units\xc2\xa0 in\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0\n State\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0Missouri.\xc2\xa0\n\n\n 12\n\x0cRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n A\xc2\xa0 major\xc2\xa0 purpose\xc2\xa0 of\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 Recovery\xc2\xa0 Act\xc2\xa0 was\xc2\xa0 to\xc2\xa0 jump\xe2\x80\x90start\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 Nation\xe2\x80\x99s\xc2\xa0\n economy,\xc2\xa0 with\xc2\xa0 a\xc2\xa0 primary\xc2\xa0 focus\xc2\xa0 on\xc2\xa0 creating\xc2\xa0 and\xc2\xa0 saving\xc2\xa0 jobs\xc2\xa0 in\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 near\xc2\xa0 term\xc2\xa0 while\xc2\xa0\n also\xc2\xa0investing\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0infrastructure\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0will\xc2\xa0provide\xc2\xa0long\xe2\x80\x90term\xc2\xa0economic\xc2\xa0benefits.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0Thus,\xc2\xa0\n the\xc2\xa0purpose\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0OIG\xc2\xa0audit\xc2\xa0was\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Commission\xe2\x80\x99s\xc2\xa0oversight\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0TCAP\xc2\xa0\n funds\xc2\xa0awarded\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa024\xc2\xa0LIHTC\xc2\xa0projects\xc2\xa0mentioned\xc2\xa0above,\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0confirm\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0workers\xc2\xa0\n on\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 projects\xc2\xa0 received\xc2\xa0 Davis\xe2\x80\x90Bacon\xc2\xa0 prevailing\xc2\xa0 wages,\xc2\xa0 that\xc2\xa0 TCAP\xc2\xa0 funds\xc2\xa0 were\xc2\xa0 not\xc2\xa0\n being\xc2\xa0 used\xc2\xa0 for\xc2\xa0 lobbying\xc2\xa0 activities,\xc2\xa0 and\xc2\xa0 that\xc2\xa0 accurate\xc2\xa0 reports\xc2\xa0 of\xc2\xa0 job\xc2\xa0 creation\xc2\xa0 were\xc2\xa0\n provided\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0Recovery.gov.\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n To\xc2\xa0 confirm\xc2\xa0 that\xc2\xa0 these\xc2\xa0 requirements\xc2\xa0 were\xc2\xa0 being\xc2\xa0 satisfied,\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 Commission\xc2\xa0\n assigned\xc2\xa0various\xc2\xa0responsibilities\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0its\xc2\xa0staff\xc2\xa0members,\xc2\xa0including\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0following:\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n 1. The\xc2\xa0Commission\xc2\xa0assigned\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0one\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0its\xc2\xa0employees\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0responsibility\xc2\xa0\n to\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0weekly\xc2\xa0certified\xc2\xa0payrolls\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0contractors\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0subcontractors\xc2\xa0\n on\xc2\xa0 all\xc2\xa0 projects\xc2\xa0 to\xc2\xa0 confirm\xc2\xa0 that\xc2\xa0 each\xc2\xa0 of\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 workers\xc2\xa0 was\xc2\xa0 being\xc2\xa0 paid\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0\n prevailing\xc2\xa0wage\xc2\xa0rate\xc2\xa0required\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Davis\xe2\x80\x90Bacon\xc2\xa0Act.\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n 2. In\xc2\xa0 addition,\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 Commission\xc2\xa0 designed\xc2\xa0 a\xc2\xa0 form\xc2\xa0 titled\xc2\xa0 \xe2\x80\x9cMaster\xc2\xa0\nComment 1 Subcontract\xc2\xa0 List\xe2\x80\x9d\xc2\xa0 that\xc2\xa0 required\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 contractor\xc2\xa0 to\xc2\xa0 provide\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 full\xc2\xa0 name\xc2\xa0 of\xc2\xa0\n each\xc2\xa0 subcontractor\xc2\xa0 used\xc2\xa0 on\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 project;\xc2\xa0 to\xc2\xa0 specify\xc2\xa0 whether\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0\n subcontractor\xc2\xa0qualified\xc2\xa0as\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0Section\xc2\xa03,\xc2\xa0WBE,\xc2\xa0MBE,\xc2\xa0or\xc2\xa0DBE\xc2\xa0subcontractor;\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0\n list\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0date\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0subcontract\xc2\xa0as\xc2\xa0well\xc2\xa0as\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0date\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0which\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0subcontract\xc2\xa0\n work\xc2\xa0began\xc2\xa0or\xc2\xa0was\xc2\xa0scheduled\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0begin;\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0identify\xc2\xa0all\xc2\xa0subcontracts\xc2\xa0exceeding\xc2\xa0\n $100,000\xc2\xa0 in\xc2\xa0 amount\xc2\xa0 so\xc2\xa0 that\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 Commission\xc2\xa0 could\xc2\xa0 obtain\xc2\xa0 anti\xe2\x80\x90lobbying\xc2\xa0\n certifications\xc2\xa0 from\xc2\xa0 each\xc2\xa0 such\xc2\xa0 subcontractor;\xc2\xa0 and\xc2\xa0 to\xc2\xa0 note\xc2\xa0 those\xc2\xa0 months\xc2\xa0\n during\xc2\xa0which\xc2\xa0each\xc2\xa0subcontractor\xc2\xa0provided\xc2\xa0labor\xc2\xa0or\xc2\xa0materials\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0project.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n 3. The\xc2\xa0Commission\xc2\xa0required\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0contractor\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0each\xc2\xa0project\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0update\xc2\xa0\n the\xc2\xa0Master\xc2\xa0Subcontract\xc2\xa0List\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0monthly\xc2\xa0basis,\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0allow\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Commission\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0\n (1)\xc2\xa0 track\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 dates\xc2\xa0 on\xc2\xa0 which\xc2\xa0 each\xc2\xa0 subcontractor\xc2\xa0 was\xc2\xa0 providing\xc2\xa0 labor\xc2\xa0 or\xc2\xa0\n materials\xc2\xa0 to\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 project\xc2\xa0 so\xc2\xa0 that\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 Commission\xc2\xa0 could\xc2\xa0 confirm\xc2\xa0 that\xc2\xa0 it\xc2\xa0 was\xc2\xa0\n receiving\xc2\xa0 Davis\xe2\x80\x90Bacon\xc2\xa0 certified\xc2\xa0 payrolls\xc2\xa0 from\xc2\xa0 all\xc2\xa0 such\xc2\xa0 subcontractors\xc2\xa0 during\xc2\xa0\n the\xc2\xa0 month\xc2\xa0 in\xc2\xa0 question,\xc2\xa0 and\xc2\xa0 (2)\xc2\xa0 obtain\xc2\xa0 lobbying\xc2\xa0 certification\xc2\xa0 forms\xc2\xa0 from\xc2\xa0 all\xc2\xa0\n subcontractors\xc2\xa0 working\xc2\xa0 on\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 project\xc2\xa0 at\xc2\xa0 any\xc2\xa0 time\xc2\xa0 whose\xc2\xa0 subcontracts\xc2\xa0\n exceeded\xc2\xa0$100,000.\xc2\xa0\n\n 4. In\xc2\xa0 addition,\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 Commission\xc2\xa0 electronically\xc2\xa0 forwarded\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 HUD\xc2\xa0 job\xc2\xa0\n calculator\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0contractors\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0quarterly\xc2\xa0basis\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0required\xc2\xa0each\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0them\xc2\xa0\n to\xc2\xa0 provide\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 total\xc2\xa0 number\xc2\xa0 of\xc2\xa0 hours\xc2\xa0 worked\xc2\xa0 during\xc2\xa0 that\xc2\xa0 quarter.\xc2\xa0 \xc2\xa0 The\xc2\xa0\n Commission\xc2\xa0also\xc2\xa0required\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0owners\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0each\xc2\xa0project\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0certify\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0accuracy\xc2\xa0\n and\xc2\xa0 completeness\xc2\xa0 of\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 information\xc2\xa0 provided\xc2\xa0 by\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 contractors.\xc2\xa0 After\xc2\xa0\n receipt\xc2\xa0 of\xc2\xa0 this\xc2\xa0 information\xc2\xa0 from\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 contractors/owners,\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 Commission\xc2\xa0\n entered\xc2\xa0into\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0job\xc2\xa0calculator\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0TCAP\xc2\xa0percentage\xc2\xa0applicable\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0project\xc2\xa0\n in\xc2\xa0question,\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0reported\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0result\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0Recovery.gov.\xc2\xa0\n\n \xc2\xa0\n 13\n\x0cRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n Having\xc2\xa0 reviewed\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 OIG\xe2\x80\x99s\xc2\xa0 draft\xc2\xa0 audit\xc2\xa0 report,\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 Commission\xc2\xa0 intends\xc2\xa0 to\xc2\xa0\n implement\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0recommendations\xc2\xa0made\xc2\xa0therein,\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0further\xc2\xa0confirm\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0accuracy\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0\n completeness\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0project\xc2\xa0information\xc2\xa0received\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Commission\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0provided\xc2\xa0\n to\xc2\xa0FederalReporting.gov.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n Specifically,\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 OIG\xe2\x80\x99s\xc2\xa0 Audit\xc2\xa0 Finding\xc2\xa0 1\xc2\xa0 states\xc2\xa0 that\xc2\xa0 \xe2\x80\x9cThe\xc2\xa0 Commission\xc2\xa0 did\xc2\xa0 not\xc2\xa0\n obtain\xc2\xa0 all\xc2\xa0 wage\xc2\xa0 reports\xc2\xa0 and\xc2\xa0 lobbying\xc2\xa0 certifications\xc2\xa0 required\xc2\xa0 by\xc2\xa0 Federal\xc2\xa0 law.\xe2\x80\x9d\xc2\xa0 \xc2\xa0 The\xc2\xa0\n associated\xc2\xa0 Recommendations\xc2\xa0 are\xc2\xa0 that\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 Commission\xc2\xa0 \xe2\x80\x9cdesign\xc2\xa0 and\xc2\xa0 implement\xc2\xa0 an\xc2\xa0\n adequate\xc2\xa0system\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0identifying\xc2\xa0contractors\xc2\xa0working\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0TCAP\xe2\x80\x90funded\xc2\xa0projects\xc2\xa0during\xc2\xa0\n the\xc2\xa0 month\xc2\xa0 and\xc2\xa0 tracking\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 receipt\xc2\xa0 of\xc2\xa0 required\xc2\xa0 documentation,\xe2\x80\x9d\xc2\xa0 and\xc2\xa0 that\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0\n Commission\xc2\xa0\xe2\x80\x9cobtain\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0review\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0required\xc2\xa0lobbying\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0Davis\xe2\x80\x90Bacon\xc2\xa0Act\xc2\xa0reports\xc2\xa0\n that\xc2\xa0are\xc2\xa0missing.\xe2\x80\x9d\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\nComment 2 In\xc2\xa0response\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0these\xc2\xa0Recommendations,\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Commission\xc2\xa0is\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0process\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0\n obtaining\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0reviewing\xc2\xa0any\xc2\xa0missing\xc2\xa0Davis\xe2\x80\x90Bacon\xc2\xa0Act\xc2\xa0certified\xc2\xa0payrolls\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0lobbying\xc2\xa0\n certifications.\xc2\xa0 \xc2\xa0 In\xc2\xa0 addition,\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 Commission\xc2\xa0 has\xc2\xa0 designed\xc2\xa0 and\xc2\xa0 is\xc2\xa0 implementing\xc2\xa0\n additional\xc2\xa0safeguards\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0confirm\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0receipt\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0all\xc2\xa0required\xc2\xa0documentation.\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n Specifically,\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 Commission\xc2\xa0 will\xc2\xa0 require\xc2\xa0 all\xc2\xa0 contractors\xc2\xa0 to\xc2\xa0 complete\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0\nComment 2 \xe2\x80\x9cMaster\xc2\xa0Subcontract\xc2\xa0List\xe2\x80\x9d\xc2\xa0form\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0weekly\xc2\xa0basis\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0provide\xc2\xa0it\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Commission,\xc2\xa0\n along\xc2\xa0with\xc2\xa0all\xc2\xa0associated\xc2\xa0Davis\xe2\x80\x90Bacon\xc2\xa0certified\xc2\xa0payrolls,\xc2\xa0with\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Master\xc2\xa0Subcontract\xc2\xa0\n List\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0payrolls\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0be\xc2\xa0accompanied\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0certification\xc2\xa0from\xc2\xa0both\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0contractor\xc2\xa0\n and\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0owner\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0effect\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0list\xc2\xa0is\xc2\xa0an\xc2\xa0accurate\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0complete\xc2\xa0statement\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0all\xc2\xa0\n subcontractors\xc2\xa0who\xc2\xa0have\xc2\xa0provided\xc2\xa0labor\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0materials\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0project\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0week\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0\n question\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0all\xc2\xa0associated\xc2\xa0Davis\xe2\x80\x90Bacon\xc2\xa0certified\xc2\xa0payrolls\xc2\xa0have\xc2\xa0been\xc2\xa0provided\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0\n the\xc2\xa0Commission.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0Upon\xc2\xa0receipt\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0this\xc2\xa0information,\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Commission\xe2\x80\x99s\xc2\xa0employees\xc2\xa0will\xc2\xa0\n continue\xc2\xa0 to\xc2\xa0 confirm\xc2\xa0 that\xc2\xa0 (1)\xc2\xa0 each\xc2\xa0 worker\xc2\xa0 listed\xc2\xa0 on\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 certified\xc2\xa0 payrolls\xc2\xa0 has\xc2\xa0 been\xc2\xa0\n paid\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 appropriate\xc2\xa0 prevailing\xc2\xa0 wage,\xc2\xa0 and\xc2\xa0 (2)\xc2\xa0 that\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 Commission\xc2\xa0 has\xc2\xa0 received\xc2\xa0\n lobbying\xc2\xa0 certifications\xc2\xa0 from\xc2\xa0 each\xc2\xa0 subcontractor\xc2\xa0 on\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 \xe2\x80\x9cMaster\xc2\xa0 Subcontract\xc2\xa0 List\xe2\x80\x9d\xc2\xa0\n whose\xc2\xa0subcontract\xc2\xa0amount\xc2\xa0exceeds\xc2\xa0$100,000.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n The\xc2\xa0 OIG\xe2\x80\x99s\xc2\xa0 Audit\xc2\xa0 Finding\xc2\xa0 2\xc2\xa0 states\xc2\xa0 that\xc2\xa0 \xe2\x80\x9cthe\xc2\xa0 Commission\xc2\xa0 did\xc2\xa0 not\xc2\xa0 accurately\xc2\xa0\n calculate\xc2\xa0 jobs\xc2\xa0 or\xc2\xa0 report\xc2\xa0 them\xc2\xa0 to\xc2\xa0 Recovery.gov,\xe2\x80\x9d\xc2\xa0 while\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 associated\xc2\xa0\n Recommendations\xc2\xa0 suggest\xc2\xa0 that\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 Commission\xc2\xa0 (a)\xc2\xa0 \xe2\x80\x9cMaintain\xc2\xa0 within\xc2\xa0 its\xc2\xa0\n administrative\xc2\xa0 records\xc2\xa0 comprehensive\xc2\xa0 information\xc2\xa0 on\xc2\xa0 corrections\xc2\xa0 to\xc2\xa0 job\xc2\xa0 creation\xc2\xa0\n figures\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0fourth\xc2\xa0quarter\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa02009\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0first\xc2\xa0quarter\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa02010\xe2\x80\x9d;\xc2\xa0(b)\xc2\xa0\xe2\x80\x9cRestate\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0\n job\xc2\xa0creation\xc2\xa0figures\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0second\xc2\xa0quarter\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa02010\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0FederalReporting.gov\xe2\x80\x9d;\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0(c)\xc2\xa0\n \xe2\x80\x9cEstablish\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0implement\xc2\xa0an\xc2\xa0adequate\xc2\xa0system\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0reviewing\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0job\xc2\xa0creation\xc2\xa0reports\xc2\xa0\n received\xc2\xa0from\xc2\xa0contractors.\xe2\x80\x9d\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0cRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\nComment 2 The\xc2\xa0Commission\xc2\xa0has\xc2\xa0satisfied\xc2\xa0Recommendations\xc2\xa0(a)\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0(b)\xc2\xa0above,\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0is\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0\n the\xc2\xa0 process\xc2\xa0 of\xc2\xa0 implementing\xc2\xa0 Recommendation\xc2\xa0 (c)\xc2\xa0 above.\xc2\xa0 \xc2\xa0 Specifically,\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0\n Commission\xc2\xa0will\xc2\xa0now\xc2\xa0provide\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0HUD\xc2\xa0job\xc2\xa0calculator\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0contractors\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0weekly\xc2\xa0\n basis\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0require\xc2\xa0them\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0include\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0calculator\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0total\xc2\xa0number\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0hours\xc2\xa0worked\xc2\xa0\n by\xc2\xa0all\xc2\xa0subcontractors\xc2\xa0on\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0project\xc2\xa0for\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0week\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0question,\xc2\xa0with\xc2\xa0this\xc2\xa0information\xc2\xa0\n to\xc2\xa0 be\xc2\xa0 certified\xc2\xa0 by\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 contractor\xc2\xa0 and\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 owner.\xc2\xa0 \xc2\xa0 When\xc2\xa0 this\xc2\xa0 information\xc2\xa0 has\xc2\xa0 been\xc2\xa0\n received,\xc2\xa0an\xc2\xa0 MHDC\xc2\xa0employee\xc2\xa0will\xc2\xa0include\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0job\xc2\xa0calculator\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0applicable\xc2\xa0 TCAP\xc2\xa0\n percentage\xc2\xa0 for\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 project\xc2\xa0 in\xc2\xa0 question.\xc2\xa0 \xc2\xa0 The\xc2\xa0 information\xc2\xa0 received\xc2\xa0 from\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0\n contractor\xc2\xa0as\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0hours\xc2\xa0worked\xc2\xa0will\xc2\xa0be\xc2\xa0verified\xc2\xa0by\xc2\xa0a\xc2\xa0second\xc2\xa0MHDC\xc2\xa0employee,\xc2\xa0who\xc2\xa0\n will\xc2\xa0 confirm\xc2\xa0 that\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 hours\xc2\xa0 worked\xc2\xa0 on\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 project\xc2\xa0 corresponds\xc2\xa0 to\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 number\xc2\xa0 of\xc2\xa0\n hours\xc2\xa0 shown\xc2\xa0 on\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 subcontractors\xe2\x80\x99\xc2\xa0 certified\xc2\xa0 payrolls\xc2\xa0 provided\xc2\xa0 for\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 week\xc2\xa0 in\xc2\xa0\n question.\xc2\xa0 \xc2\xa0 This\xc2\xa0 second\xc2\xa0 MHDC\xc2\xa0 employee\xc2\xa0 also\xc2\xa0 will\xc2\xa0 confirm\xc2\xa0 that\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 proper\xc2\xa0 TCAP\xc2\xa0\n percentage\xc2\xa0amount\xc2\xa0has\xc2\xa0been\xc2\xa0included\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0HUD\xc2\xa0job\xc2\xa0calculator.\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n In\xc2\xa0this\xc2\xa0way,\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Commission\xc2\xa0believes\xc2\xa0that\xc2\xa0it\xc2\xa0will\xc2\xa0be\xc2\xa0able\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0provide\xc2\xa0complete\xc2\xa0\n and\xc2\xa0accurate\xc2\xa0information\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0American\xc2\xa0people\xc2\xa0with\xc2\xa0respect\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0number\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0jobs\xc2\xa0\n created\xc2\xa0 by\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 TCAP\xc2\xa0 funds\xc2\xa0 appropriated\xc2\xa0 under\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 Recovery\xc2\xa0 Act,\xc2\xa0 as\xc2\xa0 well\xc2\xa0 as\xc2\xa0 to\xc2\xa0\n confirm\xc2\xa0 that\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 workers\xc2\xa0 received\xc2\xa0 appropriate\xc2\xa0 Davis\xe2\x80\x90Bacon\xc2\xa0 prevailing\xc2\xa0 wage\xc2\xa0\n payments\xc2\xa0 and\xc2\xa0 that\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 TCAP\xc2\xa0 funds\xc2\xa0 provided\xc2\xa0 were\xc2\xa0 not\xc2\xa0 used\xc2\xa0 inappropriately\xc2\xa0 for\xc2\xa0\n lobbying\xc2\xa0activities.\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n Once\xc2\xa0again,\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0Missouri\xc2\xa0Housing\xc2\xa0Development\xc2\xa0Commission\xc2\xa0wants\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0extend\xc2\xa0\n its\xc2\xa0sincere\xc2\xa0appreciation\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0U.S.\xc2\xa0Department\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0Housing\xc2\xa0and\xc2\xa0Urban\xc2\xa0Development,\xc2\xa0\n as\xc2\xa0 well\xc2\xa0 as\xc2\xa0 its\xc2\xa0 Office\xc2\xa0 of\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 Inspector\xc2\xa0 General,\xc2\xa0 for\xc2\xa0 its\xc2\xa0 oversight\xc2\xa0 of\xc2\xa0 the\xc2\xa0 Commission\xe2\x80\x99s\xc2\xa0\n administration\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0TCAP\xc2\xa0funds\xc2\xa0to\xc2\xa0ensure\xc2\xa0their\xc2\xa0proper\xc2\xa0disbursement\xc2\xa0in\xc2\xa0support\xc2\xa0of\xc2\xa0\n our\xc2\xa0Nation\xe2\x80\x99s\xc2\xa0recovery\xc2\xa0from\xc2\xa0the\xc2\xa0current\xc2\xa0economic\xc2\xa0crisis.\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n Very\xc2\xa0truly\xc2\xa0yours,\xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n \xc2\xa0\n Margaret\xc2\xa0D.\xc2\xa0Lineberry\xc2\xa0\n Executive\xc2\xa0Director\xc2\xa0\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0c OIG Evaluation of Auditee Comments\n\nComment 1 As noted in the report, this subcontractor list was not being used for Davis-Bacon\n monitoring and review.\n\nComment 2 The Commission has taken positive steps to implement the recommendations,\n including second reviews of job calculators and weekly reporting for Davis-Bacon\n and lobbying. With the implementation of these recommendations, the\n Commission will have better oversight of the TCAP.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0c'