grantcheck

Texas · Local government · under $2M in federal spending

Maverick County Hospital District

Eagle Pass, TX

The FY2025 single audit reports 1 finding: 1 material weakness, 1 with questioned costs. Audits on file for FY2023–FY2025: FY2023, FY2025.

Score: 36 of 100 (FY2025 audit)

The sum of eight parts, each read from the audit. How the score works.

PartRulePointsMax
Material weaknesses8 points each824
Significant deficiencies3 points each09
Repeat findings5 points each015
Longest repeat chain2 years 3, 3 years 6, 4 years 9, 5+ years 12012
Modified major-program opinionsqualified 8 each; any adverse or disclaimer 15815
Questioned costsknown amount of $25,000 or more, by share and dollars1515
Going concernauditor included a going-concern paragraph05
Prior-year latenessprior-year audit late or not filed, scored only with a finding55
Score36100

Federal funding, FY2025

$781,919 in federal awards spent, across 6 programs. Largest funding agencies:

AgencySpent
Department of Health and Human Services$647,781
Department of Housing and Urban Development$134,138

FY2025 audit

FAC record
2025-08-GSAFAC-0000415913
Fiscal year end
August 31, 2025
Accepted by FAC
April 24, 2026
Federal spending
$781,919 · 6 programs
Major programs
1; qualified opinion on 1
Questioned costs
$312,535 known
Score
36 of 100

Finding 2025-001

material weaknessquestioned costsmodified opinion

Program
CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTIVES (93.493)
Compliance requirement
Procurement and suspension and debarment
Questioned costs
$312,535 (known)
FAC record
FY2025 audit on fac.gov
Finding text from the filing

Congressional Directives ALN 93.493 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Award Year: September 1, 2024 to August 31, 2025 Criteria or specific requirement – Procurement, Suspension and Debarment (2 CFR 200.317 – 200.327; 2 CFR 180.220) Condition – The District is required to have procedures to ensure vendors are not suspended or debarred prior to charging services to the grant, as well as required to follow their own documented procurement procedures which should conform to the Uniform Guidance procurement standards. Cause – The District did not follow compliant procurement procedures prior to charging services to the grant. Effect or potential effect – The District’s procurement policy does not include required suspension and debarment procedures. In addition, the District did not provide for full and open competition in procuring services with grant funds. Questioned costs – $312,535 – Questioned costs represent expenses for the tested vendors in which price or rate quotations from an adequate number of qualified sources were not obtained. Context – Out of a population of three vendors with expenses directly charged to the grant that were above the micro-purchase threshold, two contracts were selected for testing. Our sampling method was not and was not meant to be statistically valid. The District did not obtain price or rate quotations from an adequate number of qualified sources for either of the vendors selected for testing. Identification as a repeat finding – N/A Recommendation – Contracts directly charged to a federal award should be reviewed to ensure compliance with the Uniform Guidance. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions – The District has reviewed the applicable requirements of the Office of Management and Budget Uniform Guidance for procurement standards, specifically those related to the requirement for procedures to be documented regarding suspension and debarment and noncompetitive procurement. The District acknowledges that their procurement policy does not currently conform to the Uniform Guidance procurement standards, and formal procurement methods were not utilized for certain grant expenses. At the time of procurement, the District operated under the understanding that engagement of a vendor holding a General Services Administration (GSA) contract was consistent with and would satisfy applicable procurement requirements. Upon further review, the District recognizes that this assumption did not, in itself, meet all Uniform Guidance requirements, particularly with respect to documentation and justification of procurement methods. To ensure compliance with Uniform Guidance going forward, the District will implement corrective actions. The District will update the current procurement policy to ensure compliance with the Uniform Guidance. The District will provide formal training to existing grant Program Managers on Uniform Guidance procurement standards. Additionally, for any new grant opportunities, the grant committee will receive training on Uniform Guidance procurement standards prior to the completion of grant applications. For both existing and future grants, any proposed contracts or purchases exceeding $3,000 will be subject to review by the grant Program Manager (or the Grant Committee lead, if a Program Manager has not yet been assigned) to ensure that the appropriate procurement method is utilized, all required documentation is obtained and retained, and compliance with all applicable procurement standards is verified prior to purchase or execution of any contract. Responsible Official – Ana Zavala, Chief Financial Officer Planned Corrective Actions – These corrective actions will be implemented immediately, with training completed by May 31, 2026. Criteria or specific requirement – Procurement, Suspension and Debarment (2 CFR 200.317 – 200.327; 2 CFR 180.220)

FY2023 audit

FAC record
2023-08-GSAFAC-0000040760
Fiscal year end
August 31, 2023
Accepted by FAC
May 31, 2024
Federal spending
$942,684 · 6 programs
Major programs
2
Score
0 of 100

No findings reported.