Implementing 2 CFR 200 Carrie Kronberg Housing Programs Manager

Implementing Uniform Guidance in Colorado Colorado State Controller Guidance on 2 CFR 200 Advance Payment not applicable Procurement implementation postponement Challenges Procurement Issues to Address Competition Clause Working with HUD

State Controller (SCO) Guidance https://www. colorado

State Controller (SCO) Guidance AVAILABLE NOW Links to Federal publications SCO Guidance and Interpretation of 2 CFR 200 for Colorado State Agencies Contractor vs. Subrecipient Determination Tool Risk Calculation Tool Internal Control Policy Link to Additional Guidance and Resources on Internal Controls PENDING SCO Policy on Conflict of Interest Policy on Grants, Contracts, OMB Uniform Guidance, and Colorado Procurement Code

State Controller (SCO) Guidance Advance Payment Requirement Not Applicable Department program staff were originally concerned about the Advance Payment requirement that was introduced in Part 200 consultant training in May 2014, and later re-iterated by regional HUD office SCO confirmed that pursuant to 2 CFR 200.305(a), state payments are governed by Treasury-State CMIA agreements and subject to different regulations State of Colorado Fiscal Rules generally prohibit advance payments, except under limited circumstances or by Fiscal Rule waiver granted by the SCO

State Controller (SCO) Guidance Procurement Implementation Postponed SCO elected to postpone the new provisions of the Uniform Guidance applicable to the State’s Procurement Code and Rules until July 1, 2017 Issued guidance that State agencies should continue to follow existing procedures regarding grants SCO policy on procurement for grants is pending

State Controller (SCO) Guidance Challenges Blanket, statewide approach when the devil is in the details Program staff need to communicate functional specifics and work with SCO for more detailed application guidance that applies to our department’s circumstances SCO workload is a barrier With delay in Procurement requirements implementation, conflict between State and local requirements, particularly for CDBG-DR

Procurement Issues to Address Potential conflicts with SCO Guidance 200.317 - States follow own procurement rules, all other non-Federal entities, including state subrecipients must follow Part 200 rules Local CDBG Entitlements and PJs actively implementing Part 200 requirements Frequent use of CDBG-DR for housing new construction means Division of Housing must monitor a higher volume of procurement activities

Procurement Competition Clause 200.319 “…In order to ensure objective contractor performance and eliminate unfair competitive advantage, contractors that develop or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work, or invitations for bids or requests for proposals must be excluded from competing for such procurements...” Previously existed in Part 84, applicable to non-profits Problematic given State’s role as gap funder Many agencies want to hire GC during design phase to ensure buildable, cost-effective product

Procurement Competition Clause - Strategies Educate public- and private-sector partners Work Around: When General Contractor hired too early Cost Reasonableness analysis General Contractor as Construction Manager only CDBG/CDBG-DR funds only support subcontracts that comply with procurement requirements

Working with HUD Office 2 CFR Part 200 is not HUD-specific, language does not always align with familiar HUD programs Work with your HUD representative and other HUD staff to decipher requirements Review regulations, determine interpretation, check with HUD staff Best to ask early in decision-making process Verify applicability for each subpart

Questions?