grantcheck

Texas · Nonprofit · $10M-$50M in federal spending

Regional East Texas Food Bank

Tyler, TX

The FY2025 single audit reports no findings. Audits on file for FY2023–FY2025: FY2023, FY2024, FY2025.

Score: 0 of 100 (FY2025 audit)

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

PartRulePointsMax
Material weaknesses8 points each024
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 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
Score0100

Federal funding, FY2025

$15,297,917 in federal awards spent, across 7 programs. Largest funding agencies:

AgencySpent
Department of Agriculture$15,293,417
Department of Homeland Security$4,500

FY2025 audit

FAC record
2025-06-GSAFAC-0000388837
Fiscal year end
June 30, 2025
Accepted by FAC
December 3, 2025
Federal spending
$15,297,917 · 7 programs
Major programs
2
Score
0 of 100

No findings reported.

FY2024 audit

FAC record
2024-06-GSAFAC-0000346631
Fiscal year end
June 30, 2024
Accepted by FAC
December 20, 2024
Federal spending
$17,449,415 · 9 programs
Major programs
3
Score
0 of 100

No findings reported.

FY2023 audit

FAC record
2023-06-GSAFAC-0000013525
Fiscal year end
June 30, 2023
Accepted by FAC
January 11, 2024
Federal spending
$14,239,182 · 10 programs
Major programs
3
Score
6 of 100

Finding 2023-001

significant deficiencyquestioned costs

Program
CORONAVIRUS STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUNDS (21.027)
Compliance requirement
Procurement and suspension and debarment
Questioned costs
amount not determinable
FAC record
FY2023 audit on fac.gov
Finding text from the filing

Identification as a repeated finding, if applicable: N/A

Recommendation: The Organization should follow the contract cost and price guidelines as outlined in the Uniform Guidance.

Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: Management does not disagree with the finding 2023-001 related to the COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. See separate report for key considerations and planned corrective action.

Cause: The Organization entered into an agreement with a previously used general contractor to oversee the construction project. The general contractor assisted in soliciting bids from subcontractors, which were brought to the Regional East Texas Food Bank for evaluation and selection. However, the general contractor’s fee was structured in the agreement as a percentage of construction costs.

Criteria: Procurement, Suspension and Debarment (2 CFR section 300.324)

Condition: Federal regulations prohibit the cost plus a percentage of cost and percentage of construction costs methods of contracting.

Questioned costs: ALN 21.027 – Unknown questioned costs for the general contractor’s fee based on 2.5% percentage of the construction costs.

Context: Out of a population of 8 vendors, 2 vendors were selected for testing. Our sampling method was not, and is not intended to be, statistically valid. Of the vendors tested, one vendor contract was structured as a fee based upon the percentage of construction costs.

Effect or potential effect: Federal contract costs and price guidelines were not followed.