Full Text
1 EECBG Onsite Monitoring Report – RW Grantee/Number: City of Fernley, Nevada/ DE-RW0000138 Monitor Name: William J. Glasser Date: May 26, 2010 I. Summary A. Purpose of Review The purpose of this visit was to conduct an onsite review of the Grantee’s progress towards implementing their approved strategies and work activities. This on-site monitoring visit was conducted as part of the Department of Energy (DOE) continued effort to improve award monitoring and oversight of programmatic, financial, and administrative activities by our Grantee Organizations. The review utilized the standard onsite monitoring checklist maintained in the PAGE reporting system as it applied to this Grantee. B. Process The following individuals were contacted during this visit: Leslieann Hayden Grants Administrator Greg Evangelatos City Manager Keith Penner Parks and Recreation Director Melville Drown City Treasurer/Finance Director The onsite review was conducted by reviewing the status and progress of the approved activities at the Grantee’s administration facility. The review also evaluated implementation of the grant’s terms and conditions as identified in the monitoring checklist applicable to the grantee as well as documented practices (procedures or policies) to establish administrative controls. During the visit, technical assistance was not requested from the Grantee. C. Financial Review The Grantee provided policies for review that govern procurement practices (RFQ process) and grant management. The Grant Administrator indicated that $45,802 of their $50,000 grant has been drawn down. The remaining amount will be drawn down upon completion of the final review of the completed project, schedule for this month. The practices implemented by the grantee appear adequate for the intended functions. No financial issues were identified that require attention at this time. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 D. Administrative – Award Files and Personnel Review The on-site monitoring activity determined that the Grant Administrator is extremely dedicated and knowledgeable of the requirements of the cities program requirements including those of the DOE Grant. Completion of the applicable checklist items identified no findings or issues that require further evaluation or follow-up. E. Programmatic Review The primary activity for this Grantee was to evaluate and establish goals to be documented in a comprehensive energy efficiency and conservation strategy. Through the utilization of a technical consultant, the Grantee has completed a draft of the “Fernley Nevada Strategic Energy Plan”. In house review and comment by the Grantee has taken place and comments are being resolved by the technical consultant. The Grant administrator expects to finalize the document for Fernley counsel review in the next few weeks. The monitoring activity included a review of the draft document that appears to provide sufficient incentives to implement energy saving activities. The Grants Administrator believes that the approval of the energy plan will result in projects being placed on a higher priority for implementation and provide the basis for requesting funding from available resources. Activities associated with this grant will be completed with the approval and issuance of the energy plan. II. Promising Practices This Grantee has developed and implemented a “Grant Policy” that provides internal controls for successful implementation of any future grant work. This was considered by the DOE on-site evaluator to be a good practice. III. Corrective Actions During this monitoring activity, there were no programs, initiatives, or activities that were considered to be problematic with the Grantee responsibilities or grant regulations. IV. Technical Assistance During this site visit, no technical assistance was requested from the Grantee. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 V. In Closing This on-site monitoring activity determined that personnel involved with grants are dedicated professionals who are very knowledgeable in grant processes. All information expected to discuss relevant questions was readily available and complete. Implementation of their energy plan should provide sustainable energy benefits for the Fernley community. A copy of the completed Onsite Checklist is in attached. VI. Certification I have conducted this monitoring visit in accordance with DOE standard procedures using the appropriate checklist for the purpose of forming an opinion on the general administration of the grant. This was not an audit, and therefore all areas examined were only examined for the purposes of obtaining an assessment of compliance with program goals and requirements. William J. Glasser Project Onsite Monitor U.S. Department of Energy Vincent F. Iorii Director of Project Management Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management U. S. Department of Energy ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 Checklist Name: EECBG Onsite Checklist Grant Number: RW0000138 Monitor Name: Glasser, Bill Checklist Date: 06/14/2010 Checklist Locked: Yes The following question pertains to DOE’s Desktop Review of the Grantee. 1. Please describe any issues that have been identified in the desktop monitoring that should be addressed during the on-site visit. Comments: No issues were identified to onsite monitor Follow Up: No State Grantees Only: The following questions pertain to Grantee’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy (EECS) that they must submit with their application. * 2. Is the State varying significantly from the approved strategy in its EECS? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 3. Is the State following their process, as stated in their EECS, for providing subgrants to units of local government that are ineligible for the formula-based EECBG? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 4. Is the process for choosing sub-grantees transparent and fair and is the State communicating the process to potential sub-grantees? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 5. Is the strategy being followed likely to ensure that it sustains benefits beyond the EECBG funding period? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No Local and Tribal Grantees Only: The following questions pertain to Grantee’s Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy (EECS) 6. Is the Grantee varying significantly from the strategy in its EECS? Answer(Yes/No/NA): No Comments: Activity has basically been completed as described. Ready for consel review June 16 for approval resolution. At that time, grant will be ready for close out. Follow Up: No 7. Is the strategy being followed likely to ensure that it sustains benefits beyond the EECBG funding period? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Goal is to use the resulting strategy to implement activities that results in identified benefits, i.e. not part of this grant. Follow Up: No The following questions pertain to Davis-Bacon requirements. 8. Is Grantee aware of which labor and wage requirements apply to their activities? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not applicable for this grant, but the grantee has internal controls ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 documented in a grant policy if needed for future grants. Follow Up: No 9. Is Grantee complying with labor and wage requirements fair labor laws, Davis-Bacon prevailing wage laws)? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 10. Have sub-grantees submitted weekly payrolls? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 11. Are payroll records on site in the State office? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No The following questions pertain to Buy American Act requirements. * 12. Is the Grantee ensuring that their purchasing procedures and the sub- grantee’s purchasing procedures are compliant with “Buy American?” Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not applicable to this grant, however organization is aware and has policy as part of RFP process. Follow Up: No * 13. Are records kept on site in the State office demonstrating this compliance? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 The following questions pertain to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). * 14. Is the Grantee complying with all NEPA conditions in the Grant? If not, explain. Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not applicable to this grant, however as an organization has experience on other grants. Follow Up: No * a. Does the Grantee have a waste stream plan that describes proper waste management? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No The following questions pertain to the National Historical Preservation Act. 15. Did the Grantee contact the State Historic Preservation Office at least 30 days prior to starting work activities subject to SHPO regulations? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Do have contact on other grants. Not applicable to this grant. Follow Up: No a. If the State Historic Preservation Office responded within those 30 days, did the Grantee wait to receive a response prior to starting work on activities subject to SHPO regulations? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 The following questions pertain to the State Grantee’s distribution to sub-grantees. * 16. Is the State distributing at least 60 percent of its EECBG funding to units of local government in the State that are NOT eligible for direct EECBG formula grants? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * a. What is the process the Grantee has developed to allocate funding in an expeditious manner? Comments: NA Follow Up: No * 17. Has the Grantee developed a process to prevent fraudulent spending? Explain. Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 18. Has the Grantee developed a process that generates timely and accurate reporting? Explain. Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 19. Has the State awarded all subgrants within 180 days of the date on which the DOE approved their EECS? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 20. Do sub-grantees report cost, schedule and work completion information to the Grantee on a regular basis? ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No The following questions pertain to Grantee’s written financial operations manual, which outlines how they handle their financial management. 21. Does the Grantee have a written financial operations manual? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 22. Does the Grantee’s written financial operations manual contain adequate information addressing: * a. Segregation of duties Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * b. Accounting standards and practices Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * c. Payment procedures Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * d. Approval authority Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * e. Record keeping requirements Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No The following pertains to the performance of the Financial System and Financial Monitoring. * 23. Does the Grantee use periodic financial reports as a management control tool? Answer(Yes/No/NA): Yes Comments: Currently working with the assigned Project Officer for upload of reports to system. Federal Reports OK. Follow Up: No * 24. Does the Grantee have a regular audit performed by a qualified firm? Answer(Yes/No/NA): Yes Comments: Yes, has comprehensive annual financial report conducted by independent audit organization Follow Up: No * a. Please explain any findings specific to EECBG found in the most recent audit report Comments: Grant was not included in last audit as grant was not awarded at the time of audit. Follow Up: No 25. Will the EECBG grant be reviewed in the upcoming audit? Answer(Yes/No/NA): Yes Comments: May be part of future evaluation. Follow Up: No ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 26. Is there a system in place that tracks auditing findings, projections, recommendations, and corrective actions? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 27. Has a system been developed to track the progress of each funded project or activity? Answer(Yes/No/NA): Yes Comments: Grant has only one activity which has been completed and ready for final approval by local authorities. Follow Up: No a. Does the system include a timetable with scheduled completion dates? Answer(Yes/No/NA): Yes Comments: Only activity was to produce the strategy. Dates in activity sheet. Follow Up: No * 28. Based on work completed to date, is the Grantee on track to obligate EECBG funds within 18 months and spend within 36 months of award? Answer(Yes/No/NA): Yes Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 29. Is the Grantee’s financial monitoring system capable of tracking and reporting Recovery Act funds separately from leveraged/other funds? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 30. Can the Grantee/sub-grantee track a single expenditure through the accounting system by: a. Fund code? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No b. Type of transaction? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No c. Amount? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No d. Fund source? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 31. Are all costs in the Grantee/sub-grantee’s budget reasonable, allowable, and allocable according to the correct cost principles (e.g. OMB A-87 for governments, A-122 for nonprofit organizations, and A-102 for educational institutions)? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 32. If the Grantee/sub-grantee has a carryover from one fiscal year to the next, are carryover balances less than 25% of prior year allocation? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 33. If the Grantee/sub-grantee has a carryover from one fiscal year to the next, is there a plan in place to address how these balances will be reduced? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 34. Does the Grantee have an adequate system for comparing expenditures to budgeted amounts? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No a. How does the Grantee compare expenditures to budgeted amounts? Comments: Not evaluated. Follow Up: No 35. Is there any budgeted amount that does not have a corresponding expenditure? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No a. Explain. Comments: NA Follow Up: No The following questions pertain to Grantee’s monitoring of sub-grantees. Under the EECBG, Grantees are expected to monitor their sub-grantees. 36. Does the Grantee have a guide for monitoring of sub-grantee performance? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 37. Does the monitoring guide cover all areas covered by the sub-grantee’s contract and the Grantee’s plan? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 38. Has a system been developed to track the progress of each funded project or activity? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No a. Does the system include a timetable with scheduled completion dates? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 39. Does the Grantee maintain written procedures describing its management of the program? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 40. Are the current contracts between the Grantee and sub-recipients signed and properly executed by both parties? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 41. Has the Grantee obtained a DUNS number and registered their sub-grantee with the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) system, as appropriate? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 42. Does the Grantee have a process to ensure that all sub-grantees comply with EECBG requirements? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 43. Have all issues, perceived issues and potential issues, as determined by the Grantee, been raised with the sub-grantee? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 44. Are sanctions imposed for sub-grantees/sub-contractors that fail to comply with program requirements? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 45. Does the Grantee have procedures in place to ensure that regular reporting is completed accurately and submitted on time? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No The following questions pertain to Grantee’s personnel. 46. Are Grantee personnel paid from a single source of funds? If not, explain. Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 47. Is staff time being properly recorded against the grant they are working on? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 * 48. Has DOE been notified of any personnel being charged to more than one grant? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 49. Are all Grantee personnel to be paid with grant funds accounted for on the Grantee’s organizational chart? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 50. Has the organizational structure remained unchanged since the grant was awarded? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * a. If it has changed, has this been amended in the State Plan or reported to the Project Officer? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 51. Are personnel policies on job classification, time and attendance, leave and overtime established in writing, and distributed to employees? Answer(Yes/No/NA): Yes Comments: Yes, documented in personnel manual. Provided to all staff and available on- line on intranet. Follow Up: No 52. Is there an established process for determining whether costs incurred by staff are allowable? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 Follow Up: No 53. Do the work hours estimated in the Grantee Plan appear to match the actual hours spent working on the Program? If there is a discrepancy, please explain. Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 54. Are key personnel identified in the grant application actually performing the duties originally proposed, if applicable? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 55. Are processes in place to ensure that no more than 100% of time is charged per employee? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * a. If not, are there any personnel listed in the Plans or Progress Report with greater than 100% utilization? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 56. If needed, are there hiring plans in place for program administrators for the Plan? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 57. If needed, are there hiring plans in place for program technical experts for the Plan? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 58. Does the Grantee believe it has sufficient staffing to meet requirements and goals? Answer(Yes/No/NA): Yes Comments: Yes, for this grant. Follow Up: No * a. If not, has this been discussed with the management in charge of overseeing hiring decisions? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * b. Describe below how staffing issues are being resolved. Comments: NA Follow Up: No The following questions pertain to Grantee’s monitoring of all vehicles and equipment. 59. Does the Grantee have a master inventory list of vehicles and equipment? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: NA to this grant, but maintains control of all vehicles. Follow Up: No 60. Are there written procedures covering the inventory, maintenance, and disposition of vehicles/equipment? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 61. Is there a process in place to ensure that purchases or leases-to-purchase meet ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 all financial and program requirements, including DOE prior approval, where applicable? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 62. Are there safeguards in place to ensure that vehicle/equipment costs are charged to the appropriate program (and category)? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 63. Are all vehicles/equipment purchased with grant funds used for only this Program fulltime use)? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 64. If vehicles/equipment purchased with grant funds are going to be used for non-program purposes part time use), is it clearly documented what the other programs are and what portion of the cost is from state energy funds? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 65. Are the vehicles/equipment currently being used appropriate and adequate for the job and do they ensure cost-effective delivery of services? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 66. Has a physical inventory of equipment been taken and the results reconciled with the property records within the last two years? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 Follow Up: No 67. If the equipment has a per-unit fair market value of $5,000 or more, does the inventory list include all the necessary information and description of the equipment? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 68. Are all unforeseen purchases (those not in the Grantee’s original budget) greater than $5,000 approved by the DOE Project Officer prior to purchase? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No The following questions pertain to Grantee’s procurement process. 69. Is the procurement process established in writing and distributed to employees? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 70. Does the procurement process clearly separate duties as they pertain to EECBG procurement activities? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 71. Is the Grantee following State’s procurement standards? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 72. Is there a clear process for determining the use and selection of sub-grantees? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 73. Does the Grantee review procurements of sub-contractors to ensure full and open competition? Answer(Yes/No/NA): Yes Comments: NA for this grant but has a RFP and FRQ process. Grantee maintains written templates. Follow Up: No 74. Are efforts made to ensure fairness in bidding and contracting procedures with small businesses, women’s business enterprises, and minority-owned firms, pursuant to Federal law? Answer(Yes/No/NA): Yes Comments: Yes, part of template. Extra evaluation points given for this consideration Follow Up: No 75. Is there a documented process and timeframe for issuing solicitations and making awards? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 76. Do procurement procedures provide cost controls to avoid unnecessary or duplicative purchases? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 77. Do procurement procedures provide cost controls to obtain the most economical purchase? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 Follow Up: No 78. Do procurement procedures analyze lease versus purchase alternatives? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 79. Does the process provide transparency in reporting what was purchased? Answer(Yes/No/NA): Yes Comments: All procurment requests and results are posted to their on-line website. Follow Up: No The following questions pertain to Grantee procedures for the identification and dissemination of best practices. 80. Does the Grantee have any best practices identified that they would like to share? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not related to this grant. Follow Up: No 81. Does the Grantee identify and report success stories to DOE? Answer(Yes/No/NA): No Comments: No but has forced community to look at an overall approach vs. industrial energy audits. The strategy will become a priority for the organization. Follow Up: No The following questions pertain to Grantee/sub-grantee properly reporting information about vendors. 82. Is the Grantee complying with Section 1512 of the Recovery Act (June 22, 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 OMB Memo)? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 83. Is the Grantee complying with reporting specified on the Reporting Requirement Checklist? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 84. Is Grantee/sub-grantee doing business with a vendor who is receiving more than $25,000 of Recovery Act funds? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * a. For any vendor receiving more than $25,000 in Recovery Act funds, has the Grantee/sub-grantee properly reported the vendor’s identity by reporting a DUNS number or name and zip code for the vendor’s headquarters? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * b. Does the Grantee/sub-grantee maintain details and documentation of all payments to the vendor, and descriptions of what was obtained for services rendered by the vendor? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 85. Are information systems in place that can handle the capacity of EECBG reporting requirements? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 Follow Up: No 86. Does the Grantee have measures in place to review the quality of data its sub- grantees report to www.federalreporting.gov? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 87. Has the Grantee demonstrated that they have no systemic or chronic reporting problems? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 88. Has the Grantee demonstrated that they have no systemic or chronic deficiencies in meeting its responsibilities to review and identify the data quality problems of sub-grantees, consistent with requirements of OMB Guidance? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 89. Has the Grantee/sub-grantee taken action to correct any reporting problems identified by DOE? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No The following questions pertain to job creation estimates by Grantees/sub-grantees. * 90. Is the Grantee estimating and reporting jobs created and retained for each project and activity, consistent with the requirements of OMB Guidance? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 Follow Up: No * 91. Is the Grantee/sub-grantee ensuring that jobs are not double counted as both created and retained? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 92. Is the Grantee reporting only direct jobs created or retained, and not indirect jobs created or retained, in their jobs total? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 93. Is the Grantee reporting only jobs that are attributable to Recovery Act funds? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 94. Is the Grantee reporting the cumulative total of jobs created or retained for the reporting period as well as the year-to-date total? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 95. Is the Grantee/sub-grantee describing its employment impact in narrative form? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 96. Is the Grantee properly calculating jobs estimates expressed in "full-time equivalents"? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * 97. Is the Grantee collecting and reporting sub-grantees’ job creation estimates and actual numbers? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No The following questions pertain to DOE requirements for retention of records. 98. Are there established procedures to ensure that records will be retained for at least three years after delivery of the final report to DOE? Answer(Yes/No/NA): Yes Comments: Defined in the grant policy. Grant management pllicy date issued 1/20/10. Records kept 5 years beyond end of grant. Follow Up: No 99. Are records properly disposed of at the end of the retention period? Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No The following questions pertain to Grantee procedures for measurement and verification. These questions are to be completed only if DOE has issued guidance for improving estimates and identifying baselines for measurement and verification. The Monitor should check with OWIP to determine if this has occurred. 100. Has the Grantee applied DOE provided guidance for improving estimates and identifying baselines for measurement and verification? If not, explain. Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No 101. Does the Grantee have access to data sources to support the methodology being used? If not, explain. Answer(Yes/No/NA): N/A Comments: Not answered Follow Up: No * - Denotes Critical Question