Two ways to manage grant subrecipients and subawards
April 26, 2022
April 26, 2022
State and local governments are the prime recipients for a tidal wave of federal grants via the CARES Act, ARPA and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This unprecedented volume of federal dollars represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to invest wisely for a better future. It can also overwhelm a state or local government’s existing management capacity.
To help ensure these grants are used effectively, many governments are making subawards to subrecipients. For example, instead of handling distribution directly, a health department can allocate funds to nonprofit providers, which then distribute to eligible individuals.
It’s an effective strategy for increasing management capacity and broadening the reach and impact of these grants. But it also introduces challenges around managing grant subrecipients and subawards.
How can state and local governments increase their odds of success when adopting this strategy? We have identified three leading practices states can follow. In this post, I’d like to highlight the first two.
The first step is to determine if the entity to whom you’re conveying the money is legally a contractor or a subrecipient.
You can do this on a case-by-case basis using the following four-part test:
Not all decisions are clear-cut. As a prime recipient, you will have to exercise judgment.
Here’s another way to think about the distinction. A contractor provides goods and services within normal business operations. A contractor also provides similar goods and services to many different purchasers. Contractors normally operate in a competitive environment and are not subject to federal compliance requirements.
But the terms and conditions of compliance for a prime recipient will flow down to a subrecipient. Each subrecipient must comply with specific federal requirements (e.g., 31 CFR 35 for ARPA) as well as Uniform Guidance for all federal grant programs in 2 CFR, Part 200.
The second step is to conduct a risk assessment of entities that you have determined are subrecipients. While conducting the assessment, consider the following:
These five questions are just a starting point. You can use your judgment to build on these (e.g., “What is the subrecipient’s experience in the type of programs administered?”).
Many governments create a scoring rubric to determine the degree of risk. For instance, they may decide to give more weight to experience and audit findings than to other elements. This risk assessment is critical. The results will, and should, drive the nature of the subrecipient monitoring approach — the topic of our next post.
In the meantime, if you’d like to know more about federal grants and how they are awarded, let’s connect via LinkedIn.
This content is provided for general information purposes and is not intended to be used in place of consultation with our professional advisors. This document refers to marks owned by third parties. All such third-party marks are the property of their respective owners. No sponsorship, endorsement or approval of this content by the owners of such marks is intended, expressed or implied.
Accenture’s Kristin McElderry discusses the opportunity for public service leaders to harness the technologies of the metaverse continuum now. Read more.
Energy-efficiency could provide the foundation for ongoing government sustainability objectives. Accenture explores how.
Improving customer service for those who serve is a critical conversation in defence organizations. Accenture explains how to improve military service.