Program Reviews

· When will the review be conducted?

· Are additional team members needed for the review and who should they be?

4.1.2. Prior to the review, BRPM/HQPC will further define the review scope. The REVIEW FIELD NOTES (NOTES) form¹ may be used to identify who will be interviewed, what documentation will be reviewed, etc.

4.1.3. If a team is being used for the review, the members will meet and discuss the review plan and scope of the review. Responsibilities will be assigned for team members, including what areas to review. Whenever possible, a representative from the Department of Audit and Management Services (A&MS) should be part of the team.

4.1.4. BRPM/HQPC will notify the affected organizations and individuals of the review and will select a review date and time. Information and records that will be reviewed should be identified so that the materials are ready for review when the team arrives.

4.2. Conducting the Review

4.2.1. BRPM/HQPC will coordinate the review. Typically, a short opening meeting is held that explains what will be looked at, who the team members are, and a description of their assignments. It should be stressed that input on areas for improvements is being sought as well.

4.2.2. The team will then divide up and complete their reviews. Both reviews of records and interviews should be conducted. Areas for improvement should also be identified.

4.2.3. A REVIEW CHECKLIST² may be used to develop the questions and information that should be reviewed for each procedure included in the review. The team may also identify other areas that should be included in the review.

4.2.4. At the end of the review, typically a short closing meeting will be held to discuss the tentative findings.

4.2.5. The results of the review will be finalized by BRPM/HQPC and the team. The results will be discussed with A&MS.

1 Exhibit 1

2 Exhibit 2

4.3. Corrective Action Plan

4.3.1. Following the review, the findings will be noted on the CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (PLAN)⁺. BRPM/HQPC will identify actions to be taken to correct the findings whenever possible. In some cases, the corrective action will need to be identified by the organization reviewed.

4.3.2. BRPM/HQPC will send the PLAN to the organizations reviewed, ask them to review corrective actions, fill in or add other corrective actions, assign someone responsibility for completing the actions, and provide a proposed due date. The PLAN should be completed and returned to BRPM/HQPC within ten days.

4.4. Follow-Up

4.4.1. Upon receipt of the completed PLAN, BRPM/HQPC will track the actions until completed and will document verification of completion.

4.4.2. BRPM/HQPC will periodically update A&MS and other applicable personnel as needed on the review and status of the corrective actions.

4.4.3. Based on the review, procedures will be updated and revised as needed using SOP-DEVELOPING AND REVISING PROCEDURES (500-2-01.1).

4.5. Other Reviews

A&MS conducts audits that review financial and internal controls. Both internal and external consultants are used. A&MS will conduct periodic audits of the Authority, including real property management. A&MS is also available to provide in-house consulting and oversight related to internal controls.

5. Responsibilities

A&MS will coordinate Authority audits related to financial and internal controls, including those involving real property management. In addition, A&MS will provide in-house consulting and oversight related to internal controls.

+ Exhibit 3

BRPM will coordinate the land transaction review process for disposals and acquisitions, including setting up a review plan, identifying and setting up a review team (as needed), conducting the review, overseeing preparation of a corrective action plan, verifying that review items were corrected and communicating review information.

HQPC will coordinate the land transaction review process for occupancy and work permits, including setting up a review plan, identifying and setting up a review team (as needed), conducting the review, overseeing preparation of a corrective action plan, verifying that review items were corrected and communicating review information.

EXHIBIT 1

REVIEW FIELD NOTES

Page 1 of 2

Review Field Notes

Type of Transaction Reviewed:_____________________________________________

Division/Organization Reviewed:___________________________________________

Reviewer(s):__________________________________Date(s): ___________________

What documents or projects should I review?

Whom should I talk to?

What questions should I ask?

What kinds of evidence do I need?

REVIEW FIELD NOTES

Page 2 of 2

Notes and Evidence/Description of Nonconformance or Opportunities to Improve:

______

EXHIBIT 2

REVIEW CHECKLIST

Page 1 of 7

Questions	Compliance Yes/No	Comments/Evidence Reviewed
General
1. Were transactions completed within a year unless otherwise approved by the Board?	Yes No
2. Were transactions resubmitted to the Board following Board approval, when: (1) background information presented to the Board changed and the Executive Director determines that the item should be resubmitted to the Board; and (2) when a Board-approved transaction could not be progressed?	Yes No
3. Were records easily located?	Yes No
4. Was all information contained in the official Transaction Record?	Yes No
5. Were records retained for required retention periods?	Yes No
6. Were employees aware of requirements?	Yes No
7. Were areas for improvement identified?	Yes No
TRANSACTION ANALYSIS PROCESS (500-2-02.1) Applies to all land transactions
8. Are inquiries entered on a Thruway Real Property Inquiry form (TA-N5114)?	Yes No
9. Is the Thruway Transaction Analysis/Recommendation (TTAR) form (TA-N5516) completed and approved and kept in the Transaction Record?	Yes No
10. If required on the TTAR, was a competitive process used?	Yes No
11. If required on the TTAR, was a survey and/or appraisal completed?	Yes No
12. If required, was an explanatory statement prepared and submitted to required parties at least 90 days prior to the transaction completion?	Yes No
13. Were Lobbying Law reporting requirements met for any contacts during the pending transaction? (See EI: Inappropriate Lobbying Influence in Authority/Corporation Procurements)	Yes No
14. Was the applicant notified of any rejection of the project?	Yes No
15. Other:

APPRAISALS AND SURVEYS (500-2-02.2)
16. Was a survey completed where required?	Yes No
17. Was a survey letter providing the scope used?	Yes No
18. Was the survey reviewed by the Real Property Unit and any issues resolved ?	Yes No
19. Was an appraisal conducted where required?	Yes No
20. Was an appraisal scope letter developed and approved by BRPM?	Yes No
21. Was the appraisal reviewed and approved by BRPM?	Yes No
22. Were any appraisal differences resolved?	Yes No
23. If the appraisal was over one year old, did BRPM review the appraisal to determine if an update was needed?	Yes No
24. For an exchange of property where the value of each property was <$300,000, were one survey and one appraisal prepared for each property?	Yes No
25. For an exchange of property where the value of either property was >$300,000, were one survey and two appraisals prepared for each property?	Yes No
26. For an exchange of property, did the appraisals demonstrate that the property to be acquired is of at least equal value to the property to be exchanged?	Yes No
27. Other:
SUBMITTALS TO THE OFFICES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE STATE COMPTROLLER (500-2-02.3)
28. Were submittals submitted to the Attorney General’s Office when required?	Yes No
29. Did submittals contain the information listed in the procedure?	Yes No
30. Were projects submitted to OSC for review and approval when required?	Yes No
31. Other:
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (500-2-02.4)
32. Were copies of applicant permits obtained prior to the start of work?	Yes No
33. Was a short or full environmental assessment form prepared? (Note: Type I actions require a FEAF)	Yes No
34. Was the SEAF or FEAF reviewed by Division and a recommendation of type and impact made?	Yes No
35. If exempt from review, was Exhibit 5 completed and placed in the Transaction Record?	Yes No
36. Were other involved and/or interested agencies identified and given the package for review?	Yes No
37. Were the application, SEAF/FEAF and Division recommendation reviewed by OTPES?	Yes No
38. Did the Board review and make the SEQRA determination?	Yes No
39. If there was a positive declaration, did the Legal Department and BRPM coordinate further required review?	Yes No
40. Did BRPM notify the applicant of the determination and any need for an EIS?	Yes No
41. Other:
OCCUPANCY PERMITS (500-2-02.5)
42. Where a disposal was contemplated, were any permits issued in advance of the disposal approved by the Executive Director? See Work Permit Exceptions – Exhibit 2 in SOP 500-2-02.1.	Yes No
43. Where an occupancy permit was required, was any work permit issued in advance of the disposal approved by the Executive Director? See Work Permit Exceptions – Exhibit 2 in SOP 500-2-02.1.	Yes No
44. Was a TTAR prepared and approved for the transaction?	Yes No
45. Were annual fees determined by Division real estate personnel by appraisal where there was no fee schedule?	Yes No
46. Were fees received and a receipt issued and the fee sent to the Credit and Collection Unit or was a permit closure notice sent to the applicant?	Yes No
47. Was a Transaction Record kept by the HQPC?	Yes No
48. Were any appeals of the permit fee sent to the DD for handling in accordance with regulations and procedures?	Yes No
49. Other:	Yes No
WORK PERMITS (500-2-02.6)
50. Where a disposal was contemplated, were any permits issued in advance of the disposal approved by the Executive Director? See Work Permit Exceptions – Exhibit 1 of this SOP.	Yes No
51. Where an occupancy permit was required, was any work permit issued in advance of the disposal approved by the Executive Director? See Work Permit Exceptions – Exhibit 1 of this SOP.	Yes No
52. Were fees, security deposit and performance bond received and a receipt issued and the fee sent to the Credit and Collection Unit?	Yes No
53. Did the DPC ensure that the insurance certificate was current and provided adequate coverage?	Yes No
54. Did the DPC review and approve the application?	Yes No
55. Was the applicant notified of any permit application rejections by the DD?	Yes No
56. Were fees collected upon completion of the work, if required?	Yes No
57. Following completion of the work, did the DPC conduct a site visit, if needed, and required follow-up action taken?	Yes No
58. Other:
PERMIT AND LEASE ENFORCEMENT (500-2-02.7)
59. For delinquent accounts for nonpayment, were the steps described in the SOP followed?	Yes No
60. For lapsed insurance, were the steps in Section 4.2 followed?	Yes No
61. For other permit or lease violations, were the steps described in the SOP followed?	Yes No
62. Did the HQPC (for permits) or BRPM (for disposals) coordinate a review to determine the appropriate response?	Yes No
63. Was action taken to correct the violation?	Yes No
64. Was the Board notified of any proposed lease termination?	Yes No
65. Did the Credit and Collections Unit and/or the Legal Department coordinate collection of delinquent accounts as described in the SOP?	Yes No
66. Was a Division site inspection conducted and documented as described in the SOP?	Yes No
67. Were issues resolved?	Yes No
68. Were encroachments handled in accordance with the SOP?	Yes No
69. Other:
LEASES (500-2-02.8)
70. Was a TTAR completed and approved for the lease?	Yes No
71. Were any permits issued in advance of the lease approved by the Executive Director?	Yes No
72. Was the lease resubmitted to the Board if any of the circumstances described in the SOP were met?	Yes No
73. Was the lease completed within one year of Board authorization?	Yes No
74. Were Lobbying Law requirements met including a restricted period, contact only with official contacts, vendor responsibility, etc.?	Yes No
75. Were required survey and appraisal deposits and costs received?	Yes No
76. Was any required survey or appraisal completed?	Yes No
77. Were SEQRA reviews completed?	Yes No
78. Did the DD notify the applicant of any rejections of their application?	Yes No
79. Was the lease reviewed by the TRPMC?	Yes No
80. Was the Board kept apprised of the progress of the lease?	Yes No
81. If required, was an explanatory statement prepared and distributed by BRPM?	Yes No
82. Did the Board authorize the lease?	Yes No
83. Did the Legal Department prepare the lease?	Yes No
84. Was the lease signed by the Executive Director, the Chief Financial Officer, and the Legal Department?	Yes No
85. Where the total contract rental payments were >$10,000, did the OAG and OSC approve the lease?	Yes No
86. Did the Insurance Compliance Unit ensure that proper insurance coverage is in effect and process bond and rental payment?	Yes No
87. Did BRPM maintain a Transaction Record for the lease?	Yes No
88. Other:
ACQUISITIONS (500-2-02.9)
89. For acquisitions by eminent domain, did the Legal Department coordinate the acquisition?	Yes No
90. Was the acquisition completed within one year of Board authorization?	Yes No
91. Was the acquisition resubmitted to the Board if any of the circumstances described in the SOP were met?	Yes No
92. Were Lobbying Law requirements met including a restricted period, contact only with official contacts, vendor responsibility, etc.?	Yes No
93. Were required survey and appraisal deposits and costs received?	Yes No
94. Was any required survey or appraisal completed?	Yes No
95. Were SEQRA reviews completed?	Yes No
96. Was the acquisition reviewed by the TRPMC?	Yes No
97. Was the Board kept apprised of the progress of the lease?	Yes No
98. Did the Board authorize the acquisition?	Yes No
99. Did BRPM coordinate the preparation of the acquisition package?	Yes No
100. Did the Legal Department prepare the purchase agreement or easement and applicable documents?	Yes No
101. Was the purchase and sale agreement signed by the Executive Director, the Contracting Officer, and the Legal Department?	Yes No
102. Where the property value was >$15,000, did the OAG and OSC approve the acquisition?	Yes No
103. Did the Legal Department coordinate the closing?	Yes No
104. Did BRPM maintain a Transaction Record for the sale?	Yes No
105. Other:
SALES (500-2-2.10)
106. Was a TTAR completed and approved for the sale?	Yes No
107. Were any permits issued in advance of the sale approved by the Executive Director?	Yes No
108. Was the sale resubmitted to the Board if any of the circumstances described in the SOP were met?	Yes No
109. Was the sale completed within one year of Board authorization?	Yes No
110. Were Lobbying Law requirements met including a restricted period, contact only with official contacts, vendor responsibility, etc.?	Yes No
111. Were required survey and appraisal deposits and costs received?	Yes No
112. Was any required survey or appraisal completed?	Yes No
113. Were SEQRA reviews completed?	Yes No
114. Did the DD notify the applicant of any rejections of their application?	Yes No
115. Was the sale reviewed by the TRPMC?	Yes No
116. Was the Board kept apprised of the progress of the sale?	Yes No
117. If required, was an explanatory statement prepared and distributed by BRPM?	Yes No
Questions 118 and 119 - apply to sales by auction. For an RFP, reference procurement procedures.
118. Did BRPM coordinate the development of an auction plan that was approved by the Contracting Officer?	Yes No
119. Did the auction bid package contain the information required in the SOP?	Yes No
120. Did the sale notice and advertising plan contain the information required in the SOP?	Yes No
121. Was a notice of sale developed containing the information required in the SOP?	Yes No
122. Were the plans followed?	Yes No
123. Did prospective bidders register and did the registration form contain Lobbying Law requirements?	Yes No
124. Was the sales agreement signed by the highest bidder at the conclusion of the auction and a deposit paid?	Yes No
125. Did the Board authorize the proposed sale?	Yes No
126. Did BRPM enter the transaction information on the list of real property with a FMV >$15,000 that the Authority intends to dispose of for that year?	Yes No
127. Was the sales agreement prepared by the Legal Department?	Yes No
128. Was the sale agreement signed by the Legal Department, the Chief Financial Officer, and the Executive Director?	Yes No
129. Where the sale contract value was over $10,000, did the OAG and OSC approve the sale?	Yes No
130. Did BRPM notify the applicant of any rejections?	Yes No
131. Did BRPM notify ERPU to update maps and databases to reflect the sale?	Yes No
132. Did BRPM keep the Transaction Record for the sale?	Yes No
Other:

EXHIBIT 3

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN

Finding	Action	Person Responsible	Due Date	Completion Date	Verified By & Date Verified