grantcheck

Colorado · Nonprofit · under $2M in federal spending

Pikes Peak United Way

Colorado Springs, CO

The FY2024 single audit reports 1 finding: 1 significant deficiency.

No FY2025 single audit on file as of October 30, 2026. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025, it was due March 31, 2026, 213 days earlier. It is expected because the FY2024 audit reported $1,246,558 in federal spending; an organization whose federal spending fell below the threshold would not need one.

Score: 3 of 100 (FY2024 audit)

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

PartRulePointsMax
Material weaknesses8 points each024
Significant deficiencies3 points each39
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 15015
Questioned costsknown amount of $25,000 or more, by share and dollars015
Going concernauditor included a going-concern paragraph05
Prior-year latenessprior-year audit late or not filed, scored only with a finding05
Score3100

Federal funding, FY2024

$1,246,558 in federal awards spent, across 2 programs. Largest funding agencies:

AgencySpent
Department of the Treasury$996,558
Department of Housing and Urban Development$250,000

FY2024 audit

FAC record
2024-06-GSAFAC-0000361545
Fiscal year end
June 30, 2024
Accepted by FAC
March 24, 2025
Federal spending
$1,246,558 · 2 programs
Major programs
1
Score
3 of 100

Finding 2024-001

significant deficiency

Program
CORONAVIRUS STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUNDS (21.027)
Compliance requirement
Procurement and suspension and debarment
FAC record
FY2024 audit on fac.gov
Finding text from the filing

Criteria or Specific Requirement – Management is required to ensure that there are sufficient internal controls in place over program purchasing. This includes use of the Organization's own documented procurement procedures which reflect applicable state and local law regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal law and standards. As well as, internal controls that documentation is maintained to support compliance with the procurement policy. Condition –The Organization does not have a formalized procurement policy that conforms to applicable standards under Uniform Guidance. Additionally, there was no documentation of the history of procurement including the rationale for the method of procurement and the Organization's procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded. Context – During our testing of procurement, we sampled eight expenditures totaling $526,401. We noted that two of the eight selections did not have documentation of the rationale for the method of procurement. Additionally, we noted that all eight selections of expenditures did not have SAMS.gov verification documentation. However, as part of our audit procedures, we determined that the expenditures were made with contractors which were not supsended or disbarred and were appproved on the SAMS.gov website. Cause – Procurement policy was not sufficient to ensure full compliance. Effect or Potential Effect – The Organization does not have adequate documentation to support the rationale for procurement method. Additionally, use of non-approved vendors could have occurred. However, as part of our audit procedures, we determined that the expenditures were made with contractors which were not suspended or disbarred and were approved on the SAMS.gov website. Recommendation – We recommend that management implement a formal procurement policy using the guidance of 2 CFR 200.317 - 200..327. Additionally, management should follow this policy when procuring services or property and maintain the related documentation. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions – Management agrees with the finding. Management is in the process of reviewing and revising its policies.