1. Mark Reger, Deputy Controller Gilbert Tran, Policy Analyst
OMB Update
Mark Reger, Deputy Controller
Gilbert Tran, Policy Analyst
March 11, 2015

2. Topics Improper Payments Transparency – Data Act Implementation
Uniform Guidance for Grants 

3. Improper Payments - Brief History
November 2002 – Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA)
Created basic framework for identifying and reporting improper payments
November 2009 – Executive Order 13520
Improved agency accountability
Increased transparency
July 2010 – Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act (IPERA)
Put into law specific thresholds for identifying high-risk programs
Strengthened corrective action plans
Expanded payment recapture audits
Established annual OIG compliance reviews
January 2013 – Improper Payments Elimination & Recovery Improvement Act (IPERIA)
Codified EO requirements
Improved agency estimation and recovery of improper payments
Reinforced and accelerated the Administration’s “Do Not Pay” efforts

4. A-123 Appendix C Update
Vision: transform improper payment compliance framework to create a more unified, comprehensive, and less burdensome set of requirements for agencies and OIGs
IPERIA required OMB to issue new guidance—we approached it as an opportunity to overhaul Appendix C of OMB Circular A-123
Process: as we drafted the new Appendix C, we had to consider the following:
The three statutes and the Executive Order
Previous Appendix C version (M-11-16)
Input from agencies, OIGs, GAO, and OMB

5. New Appendix C Highlights
The updated guidance reconciles IPERIA requirements that are identical to requirements from EO 13520
Consolidates and streamlines reporting requirements for agencies and OIGs
Agencies can incorporate most of their reporting into AFR or PAR
OIGs for agencies with high-priority programs are no longer required to issue separate reports under EO and IPERA—one report will suffice
Provides a more detailed categorization of improper payments
Adds an internal control framework for addressing improper payments
Provides guidance to agencies—as required by IPERIA—to strengthen the statistical validity of estimates and include payments to Federal employees in the definition of improper payments, among other things

6. New Improper Payment Categories
Previously only three categories; not very useful
New guidance establishes new categories for reporting improper payments
Provides more granularity on estimates, leading to:
More effective corrective actions at the program level
More focused strategies for reducing improper payments at the government-wide level
Better communication about the nature of improper payments

8. Corrective Actions
We are conducting an analysis to identify program-specific corrective actions with the highest return-on-investment or potential for substantially reducing improper payments
Questions we are interested in:
Which current corrective actions are the most effective in reducing improper payments in your programs?
Could you list one or two things that your programs are not already doing (but could realistically do) that would lead to a significant decrease in improper payments?
What, if any, are the barriers preventing your agency from taking these actions, and what would it take to overcome those barriers?
If you implemented these actions, by how much could the improper payment rate go down for your programs?
How has your agency advanced data analytics and improved technology to prevent and reduce improper payments ?

9. DATA Act Implementation Update

10. DATA Act Goals
Expand the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 by disclosing direct federal agency expenditures and linking federal contract, loan, and grant spending information to programs of federal agencies to enable taxpayers and policy makers to track federal spending more effectively.
Provide consistent, reliable, and searchable government-wide spending data that is displayed accurately for taxpayers and policy makers on the USASpending.gov website.
Analyze federal spending data to proactively prevent waste, fraud, abuse, and improper payments.
Simplify reporting for entities receiving federal funds by streamlining reporting requirements and reducing compliance costs while improving transparency.
Improve the quality of data submitted to USASpending.gov by holding federal agencies accountable for the completeness and accuracy of the data submitted.
Additional expenditures information on USAspending
Sec 3 requires the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to post on the USAspending.gov website the following information for funds made available to or expended by a Federal agency:
(1) for each appropriations account – the budget authority appropriated, the amount obligated, the unobligated balances, and any other budgetary resources;
(2) the amounts obligated and outlayed for each program activity;
(3) the amounts obligated and outlayed for each object class; and
(4) for each program activity, the amounts obligated and outlayed by object class.
Treasury has three years after the date of enactment of the DATA Act to first post this information and is then required to post information on a quarterly basis, and, where practicable, on a monthly basis.
Financial data standards
REQUIREMENTS.—The data standards established shall:
1) incorporate widely accepted common data elements, such as those developed and maintained by—
(A) an international voluntary consensus standards body;
(B) Federal agencies with authority over contracting and financial assistance; and
(C) accounting standards organizations;
(2) incorporate a widely accepted, nonproprietary, searchable, platform-independent computer3
readable format;
(3) include unique identifiers for Federal awards and entities receiving Federal awards that can be consistently applied Government-wide;
(4) be consistent with and implement applicable accounting principles;
(5) be capable of being continually upgraded as necessary;
(6) produce consistent and comparable data, including across program activities; and
(7) establish a standard method of conveying the reporting period, reporting entity, unit of measure, and other associated attributes.

11. DATA Act in Context of Spending Life Cycle
Appropriation
Apportionment
Allotment
(Allocation)
Commitment
Obligation
Payment
Receipts/
Financing
Award
360 Spending Life Cycle
DATA Act
FFATA (USAspending.gov)

12. Governance and Implementation Structure
Executive Steering Committee – OMB and Treasury
Inter-Agency Advisory Committee – OMB, Treasury, and
Representatives from: CFOC, BOAC, ACE, COFAR, CAOC, CIOC, PIC, OSTP, GSA, CIGIE
Lead
Treasury
(Data Transparency PMO)
OMB
Design and Implement
Data Exchange Standards
Blueprint/roadmap between data elements
Data Definition Standards
Pilot to Reduce Admin Burden
Data Analytics
Support
Senior Accountable Officials from each of the 24 CFO Act agencies
Consult
Industry
Non-Federal stakeholders
Federal Lines of Business

13. DATA Act Requirements FFATA Sec. 3 “Full disclosure of federal funds”

14. DATA Act Implementation Approach
Data-centric
Avoid massive system changes, rather focus on managing data
Incremental
Release data as it becomes available
Reuse
Maximize and leverage use of existing processes and investments
Collaborative
Feedback drives improvements
Iterative/Agile
Conduct many small scale pilots

15. Launch improved USAspending (March)
DATA Act Milestones
Agencies report information in accordance with the standards. Information published on public website (May)
Report on results of reporting pilot (August)
Issue guidance to agencies on data standards and conduct pilot (May)
Establish pilot to standardize financial reporting (May)
DATA Act Requirements
OMB Guidance to agencies to reduce reporting burden (August)
DATA Act Enacted
(May)
First IG report (Nov.)
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Agencies implement June 2013 OMB memo on data quality (Q1)
USAspending transitioned to Treasury (Feb.)
Launch improved USAspending (March)
USAspending short-term improvements

16. Federal Spending Transparency at the State Level
States have been making great strides and launching robust transparency initiatives
How do you use this data to manage?
How can we complement and support your work on transparency with our efforts?
We welcome continued feedback and partnership.
Check out our GitHub page:

17. The New Uniform Guidance
♫ Are You Ready for This ?
The New Uniform Guidance
2 CFR 200

18. Guidance Reform History
Nov. 2009: Executive Order: Reduce Improper Payments
Feb 2011: Presidential Memo: Reduce Administrative Burden
Feb 2012: Advance Notice of Proposed Guidance (public comments)
Feb 2013: Notice of Proposed Guidance (public comments)
Dec 2013: Final Uniform Guidance
† April 2013

19. Guidance Reform History
December 2013: Uniform Guidance Published
January-April 2014: Training Webcasts, Publish 2014 Single Audit Compliance Supplement
June 2014: Agencies Submit Draft Rules to OMB, Continued Outreach on Implementation
December 2014: Final Guidance Effective, Baseline Metrics Collected, Case Studies of Best Practices Published
Fall 2014: Metrics, Additional FAQs and Webcast

20. Eliminating Duplicative and Conflicting Guidance
Awards
Received
A-102 & A-89
A-87
A-133 &A-50
Subawards to universities
A-110
A-21
Subawards to nonprofits
A-122
Then:
INSERT YOUR
STATE OR AGENCY HERE
Now: All OMB guidance streamlined in 2 CFR 200.

23. 2 CFR 200 -Basic Layout 6 Subparts A through F
Subpart A, 200.XX – Acronyms & Definitions
Subpart B, 200.1XX – General
Subpart C, 200.2XX – Pre Award - Federal
Subpart D, 200.3XX – Post Award – Recipients
Subpart E, 200.4XX – Cost Principles
Subpart F, 200.5XX – Audit
11 Appendices - I through XI

24. Top Ten Impact Changes 200.1 through 99 Standard Definitions
, Review of risk of applicants
Must have framework for evaluating risks
Should consider financial stability, performance history, audit reports
, Supplies (computing devices)
, Procurement Standards
, Prior Written Approval (22 items)

25. Top Ten Impact Changes 200.407, Prior Written Approval (22 items)
, Direct Costs
, Indirect Costs
Must accept approved negotiated rates (some exceptions)
10% of MTDC de minimis IDC
One time four-year extension of current approved rate (final and pre-determined rates only)
, Compensation – Personal Services
200.5XX, Single Audits
Higher Threshold ( )
Better Transparency ( )
More Focus on Risk ( )

26. “Should” and “Must”
Shall is Out – Yes, Shout it Out But Should is In May will be back So will April and June Orange is the new Black Must is the new Shall

27. Procurement “Claw” (Sections 200.317-326)3.
Sealed
Bids 4.
Competitive
Proposals
Small Purchases 5.
Sole
Source
General Standards:
A. Documented Policies
B. Necessary
C. Full & Open Competition
D. Conflict of Interest
E. Documentation
i. Cost & Price Analysis
ii. Vendor Selection 1.
Micro-Purchases

28. Procurement “Claw” (Section 200.320)3.
Sealed
Bids 4.
Competitive
Proposals 2.
Small
Purchases 5.
Sole
Source
• > $150K
• Construction projects
• Price is a major ---factor
• > $150K
• Fixed price or cost ---reimbursement
• RFP with
evaluation methods 1.
Micro
Purchases
• Up to $150K
• Rate quotations
• No cost or price analysis
• Unique
• Public emergency
• Authorized by agency
(or PTE)
• No competition
• $3K
• No quotations
• Equitable distributions

29. OK, so what’s next?!

30. Agency Implementation
Adopted by 28 Federal awarding agencies on December 19, 2014
Agency implementation regulations available in 2 CFR
Effective for awards issued on or after December 26, 2014

31. Interim Final Rule Comments
Joint interim final rule comments were due February 17, 2015
OMB is in the process of reviewing comments in coordination with Federal awarding agencies

32. Metrics
OMB Memorandum M requests non-Federal stakeholder feedback on the overall impact on burden and waste, fraud, and abuse
The Council on Financial Assistance Reform (COFAR) and OMB is currently accepting feedback on the COFAR website

33. Resources The COFAR website is available at: https://cfo.gov/cofar/
Includes:
FAQs
Webcasts
Crosswalk to agency exceptions and additions