Text · page 4 of 10
Contractual Services How Should District Officials Ensure Payments for Contractual Services Are Accurate and Supported? Payment for services should be based upon board-authorized written contractual agreements that clearly indicate the scope of services to be provided, the time frames for delivering services and the basis for compensation. Claims for payment should fully itemize actual services to date, evidencing the terms and conditions of the contract are complied with, and should be reviewed by an appropriate department head and the claims auditor prior to payment. The Board Had Written Agreements with Service Providers The District paid nine professional service providers $8.3 million during the 2017- 18 school year for various services including information technology support, student transportation, food service, occupational and physical therapy, auditing, legal and maintenance services. We found that the District had Board-approved contracts or agreements on file for all nine service providers. With written service agreements in place, District officials are in a position to effectively monitor service provider activities and ensure claims are accurately paid. Payments Were Not Supported by Sufficient Documentation We reviewed payments totaling $4.6 million made to the nine service providers to determine if payments were properly audited, supported by sufficient documentation and made in accordance with related contracts or agreements.1 Payments to the service providers were generally made at the appropriate rates and in accordance with contract provisions. However, we found payments to two service providers totaling $477,000 (10 percent) were not supported by sufficient documentation to ascertain that services were rendered in accordance with the contract. The District paid $275,000 for information technology support services even though the claims lacked descriptions of the services provided and documentation demonstrating how the rate of compensation was determined or by whom. The contract required the District to pay an agreed-upon rate per technology device used on its network. However, neither the District nor the service provider were certain how many devices the District used on the network. District officials told us that the prior Assistant Superintendent and the service provider estimated the 1 One service provider had multiple contracts with the District totaling approximately $4 million. Within the information technology services contract we reviewed the most material contract with this provider totaling $275,000. 2 Of f ic e of t he New York State Comptroller