September
15, 2011
QUESTIONS RAISED AT THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES FORUM AT SLU
Supplier Registration Portal:
Observation: Customers have noticed a bit of a delay from the time they enter the
information online and when they can use the supplier.
Response:
Tools & Templates:
Question:
Question:
We explained this is still in phase 1 and a bit of a manual key
entry process right now. With Phase 2 this will become an
automatic upload and a faster process.
How will this work without a Req Number?
Response:
John explained you will still be able to create a sole source in
PAS. This is just a mechanism to provide additional guidance to
those who what or need it. It could be a good hybrid resource
for researchers to see examples of sole source justification
online.
Will there be a way to see that our Sole Source was submitted electronically?
Response:
There will be a link in PAS to reflect this. We are working on
that now. We are having a database created where this
information will go. This will make it easier for the buyer to
access all documents by PO. You can go in and see and save
the document as a PDF.
We are looking for Beta Testers. It sounds like Cindy may be
willing to help with that.
UW Contracts:
Suggestion:
Observation:
It is hard to know what terminology we use in the search criteria. Can this be
a drop down menu? That will allow the users to see the verbiage we use.
Customers have found that the search criteria doesn’t sync with the results.
Response:
Ray thanked the customers for this feedback and encouraged
them to send these suggestions through the feedback link so
we can record and take action on these suggestions.
Procurement Desktop Reports:
Comment:
There is a separate retention schedule for research grants (6 years past the
expiration date of the grant – not the invoice date). Keeping the documents
for 6 years past the invoice date does not help in these instances. Grant folks
will still have to save these documents.
Response:
Look at the specific rules of your grant and talk with Records
Management if you have questions about when to print / not to
print documents. Also consider your department guidelines.
Julie checked with Records Management and they have a
wealth of information regarding the retention schedule for
1
September
15, 2011
QUESTIONS RAISED AT THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES FORUM AT SLU
grant financial documents, and they are more than happy to
discuss it with departments. See the email at the end of this
page or the Records Retention website at
http://f2.washington.edu/fm/recmgt/FAQs/FD
The guidelines specify that retention is based on the
submission of each individual Financial Status Report (FSR) and
not the final FSR. Generally the FSR’s are submitted annually.
So, for example, a 6 year grant will typically have 6 FSR’s.
Change to the RIP / NonRIP Process:
Question:
So you’re putting more work on the departments?
Response:
No, actually we’re putting information in the hands of the
people who need it. Currently the RIP / NonRIP reports go to
the box number assigned to the primary budget on the PO.
PDR will allow the people who need to see the invoice the
ability to view it as needed. We do not recommend printing the
invoice images as they will be available in PDR for the full 6 year
retention period.
Rudy Gonzales commented this was good because it actually
means less missing invoices.
NonPO Invoice Payments:
Question:
How would you process renewal notices or memberships where you don’t have
an invoice?
Response:
Renewal Notices and Memberships are precisely what this
nonPO invoice payment is for – a quick and easy way to process
payments.
Observation:
You cannot do a NTE per budget. Sometimes you need this for grants
Response:
Typically you will see the invoice and know how much will be
charged to the budget. Michelle will look into this a little
further.
Question:
Will there be different authorizations than in eProcurement?
Response:
No, it will be similar permissions.
Question:
Do we need to start over with the vendor?
Response:
We’re cleaning up the supplier database and will transition
most recently used suppliers to Ariba and can update the file as
needed.
Question:
Is there a minimum payment?
Response:
There is no minimum, but a maximum of $3500.
2
September
15, 2011
QUESTIONS RAISED AT THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES FORUM AT SLU
Question:
Can this system handle attachments?
Response:
Attachments are being considered in a future rollout.
Procard: What’s ahead?
Question:
Have you confirmed the $75 receipt waiver with the auditors yet?
Response:
Yes. Remember to keep documentation in the transaction
note box.
Question:
Paper Reduction:
Observation:
Can you use level 3 data in lieu of an invoice?
Response:
No.
SLU is printing procard invoice documentation and packing slips which
increase their paper usage. The SLU procedure is to have a paper copy for the
auditors, reconcilers and archives. Procard reconciliation takes much of their
time and they often come in on weekends to reconcile ProCards.
Tax:
Question:
Some suppliers (Cardinal mentioned) split out their state and federal tax on
the procard invoice. SLU knows their tax expectation but the invoice does not
reflect what they are expecting. How should they flag the tax box if only
some of the tax was paid.
Response:
Go ahead and flag it for use tax.
From: Cara K. Ball
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:30 PM
To: Julie Condit
Cc: Barbara Benson
Subject: Financial Status Report, cufoff and when to begin counting retention
Hi Julie,
Here is my "standard" response to the question of how long financial records
should be kept for grants at the University. We are constantly trying new ways
of explaining how to apply the retention to these records. We are playing with
the idea of a flowchart and/or pictures in an attempt to assist our clients
obtain compliance with these records. Once we have those constructed, we will
place them on our website as well.
In the meantime, we have a FAQ on this question and is located in 2 places.
http://f2.washington.edu/fm/recmgt/FAQs/FD Questions about Financial Reports
under “I have a grant that started in 1962. Don't I have to keep the financial
reports from the beginning of the grant?” and the same question is posted under
FAQ Grant and Contract Records. I’ve cut/pasted it here for your ease:
3
September
15, 2011
QUESTIONS RAISED AT THE PROCUREMENT SERVICES FORUM AT SLU
I have a grant that started in 1962. Don't I have to keep the financial reports from the
beginning of the grant?
State and federal auditors have a 6 year window of opportunity to audit financial records. The
University retention requirements are established to ensure the availability of financial records
that may be required for audit purposes.
Please feel free to share the information. There has been *a lot* of confusion
surrounded this issue so it is ok for individuals to question how to apply the
cut-off and retention period on these records. And, the cut-off has changed
throughout the years in our attempt to make it easier for everyone.
I am happy
to discuss this face to face or over the phone as well.
I very much appreciate you taking the time to consider the proper disposal of
your grant financial records. We are very much a compliance organization and
consider it of primary importance to ensure records are destroyed according to
the state approved records retention schedules that form the backbone of our
operation.
There is a bit of confusion between the “submission of the final Financial Status
Report” and each (usually annual) “submission of Financial Status Report” (FSR).
Retention is not based on the submission of the final FSR, but rather submittal
of each individual FSR during the course of a grant. There are some grants, SNAP
grants would be a good example, which call for the submission of a single FSR at
the end of the study.
Typically, FSRs are submitted on a annual basis. Therefore, the financial
records need to be retained for 6 years *after* the FSR for those funds have been
submitted. In an example, a 6 year grant will have 6 different FSRs throughout
its life. The records created in 2011 can be destroyed in 2017, records created
in 2012 can by destroyed in 2018 and so on.
All things considered though, I am encouraged that we are on the same page. We
both want to ensure that records are destroyed appropriately. I think it’s just
a matter of working together to ensure that we are working from the same
assumptions.
Thank you,
Cara K. Ball
University of Washington
Records Management
ballc2@uw.edu
206.543.6512
4